The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 55 of 2011 Ram Bilash Yadav. --------- Versus ..… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party With Cr. Revision No. 1011 of 2010 --------- 1.Shyam Bihari Yadav. 2.Lalan Yadav. 3.Shyamdeo Yadav. 4.Bhim Yadav. Versus ..… Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
The State of Jharkhand. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN Opposite Party ..... For the Petitioner For the State --------- : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP (in Cr. Rev. No. 1011 of 2010) Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP (in Cr. Rev. No. 1011 of 2010) 09/Dated: 1st March, 2023 Heard leaned counsel for the parties. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel submits that he has received fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner (in Cr. Rev. No. 1011 of 2010) and he seeks leave of this Court to file the same. Leave is granted. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today 2. 3. itself. 2. Since both these revision applications arise out of same judgment passed by the appellate court and are also interconnected with the same P.S. case, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both these applications have been preferred against the common judgment dated 01.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 1356 of 2002 (T.R. No. 1110 of 2009); whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 353 and 448 IPC and under sections 3 &4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999, and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. for the offence under section 147 of the IPC, six months R.I. for each the offences under Section 323, 353 and 2 448 IPC and R.I. for 2 months and four months for the offence under section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999, respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently, has been modified in the appeal filed by the petitioner which was partly allowed. The learned appellate court has upheld and confirmed the conviction under section 147, 323 and 448 IPC and under section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) practices Act, 1999, however acquitted the petitioner of charge under section 353 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of 2002 and about 21 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners (in both the cases) must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that the petitioners (in both the cases) have never misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual offenders, now they are middle aged person and petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 55 of 2011 remained in custody for about 108 days and petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1011 of 2010 also remained in custody for about 39 days, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already undergone. 5. Learned Addl. P.Ps oppose the contention of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required. 6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the representative petitioners and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgments of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2002 and 21 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 21 years. The petitioner in Cr. Rev No. 55 of 2011 remained in custody for about 108 days and petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 1011 of 2010 also remained in custody for about 39 days, and now all these petitioners are middle aged persons and sending them back to prison at this stage will hamper their entire 3 family. Further, it is not stated that any of the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity. 8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners of respective application are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 10. It is made clear that the respective petitioners (in both application) shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A, Palamau at Daltongaj failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below. 11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
Decision
sentence/fine only, these criminal revision applications stand disposed of. 12. The petitioners (in both cases) shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bond subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, Secretary, DLSA, Palamau and to the petitioners (in both cases) through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 14. Let the lower court record of this case be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Amardeep/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)