Sahdeo Saw, Son of Late Jagdish Saw, resident of Mohalla- Tetulmari, P.O. – Tetulmari v. Coram: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1526 of 2015 ------ Sahdeo Saw, Son of Late Jagdish Saw, resident of Mohalla- Tetulmari, P.O. – Tetulmari, P.S. – Katras, District – Dhanbad. The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 13.02.2024 Pronounced On 05.03.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 193 of 2012, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2814 of 1998 / T.R. No. 878 of 2012, arising out of Katras (Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 262 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine further S.I. for six months respectively, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant Sita Ram Sao is son-in-law of first wife of Jagdish Sao. After the death of first wife, Jagdish Sao solemnized second marriage and from the second wife of Jagdish Sao one son and one daughter were born. Accused Sahdeo Sao (petitioner) who is the son of Jagdish Sao from his second Cr. Revision No. 1526 of 2015 2 wife in connivance of Bhagwan Sao and Abdul Rauf Ansari hatched a criminal conspiracy and prepared false and fabricated death certificate of Jagdish Sao and obtained the said false and fabricated death certificate from Dr. G.S. Rai, in the month of February, 1996 and on the basis of that death certificate, they obtained the order for the payment of the amount deposited in the name of Jagdish Sao from the office of Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery and from the office of Chief General Manager Sizua No. 1. The then Project Officer and General Manager without any enquiry passed the order of payment of amount deposited in the name of Jagdish Sao on the basis of the aforesaid false and fabricated death certificate of Jagdish Sao and they started process of giving service to Sahdeo Sao on compassionate ground, because, Jagdish Sao was in service at Tetulmari colliery. 4. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad had taken cognizance for the aforesaid offences and transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad for trial and disposal. The trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the I.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial of this case commenced. 5. The trial court after conclusion of trial found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was confirmed by the appellate court which has been assailed in this revision. Cr. Revision No. 1526 of 2015 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment of concerned trial court and the appellate court has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that petitioner has remained in custody in course of trial for a period of six months and after dismissal of his appeal, he has surrendered on 31.08.2016 and thereafter, he was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of three years imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone seven months & 19 days imprisonment during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and revision, as such, the petitioner has been adequately punished for the offences committed by him. Under such circumstances, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. The finding of the courts below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 10. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of three years rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent Cr. Revision No. 1526 of 2015 4 of seven months & 19 days during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and revision. 11. It appears that the occurrence is of the year 1998 and about 26 years has been elapsed. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also remained in custody for about seven months & 19 days. 12. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 13. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. Let the copy of this judgment along with L.C.R. be sent to the concerned court forthwith. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 05/03/2024 Sunil/-NAFR