Jharkhand High Court
Mani Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 8 July, 2022
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 876 of 2004
1. Mani Mahli
2. Manu Oraon ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
--------
06/ 08.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 102 of 1998, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.1998 in S.T. No. 280 of 1992/ 09 of 1992, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, whereby the petitioners were convicted and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo RI for 5 years under Sections 307/34 IPC and directed the sentences to run concurrently, has been affirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even in the prosecution case it has been alleged that by the informant that due to old enmity, the co-villagers Chhoteya Oraon, Budhu Oraon and Munu Oraon and Mani Mahli had assaulted him. Thus, from the bare perusal of the FIR it is clear that there was personal enmity 2 between the two sides. He further submits that there was no intention for murder so the conviction under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable. He fairly submits that admittedly, there was a fight between the two parties but it was due to sudden provocation and there was no premediation of mind before the occurrence. He lastly submits that petitioner No.1 is now aged about 60 years and petitioner No.2 is now aged about 50 years, as such some leniency may be granted by this Court and the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby sustained.
6. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992 and almost 30 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all those years. Further, petitioners remained in custody for about 239 days and now they are all aged persons and 3 during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail.
7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the sentence in lieu of fine.
8. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The amount shall be deposited before the Secretary, D.L.S.A, Lohardaga within four months from today.
9. With the aforesaid observation, direction and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
10. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
11. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary DLSA, Lohardaga and the petitioners through officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.
12. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/