Jharkhand High Court
Dashrath Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 28 February, 2020
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 260 of 2002
1. Dashrath Mahato
2. Anup Mahato ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P
---------
04/ 28.02.2020 The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 13th June, 2002, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Cr. Appeal No.16- C/2000/ 4 of 2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2000, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Seraikella in Kharsawan P.S. Case No.33/91, corresponding to G.R. No.484/1991, whereby the petitioners along with other co-accused were convicted for the offence under Section 323 and 325 /34 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months for the charge under Section 323 IPC and RI for 2 years for the offence under Section 325 /34 IPC, has been partly allowed.
2. The petitioners herein were acquitted from the charge under Section 325 IPC however, while sustaining the conviction under Section 323 IPC, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence from 6 months to 3 months for the said offence.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1-Dashrath Mahato is more than 85 years of age and petitioner No.2-Anup Mahato is about 60 years as such, looking to the allegation and the sentence awarded to them for the said charges and their old age, some leniency may be granted by this Court and the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.
4. Per contra, the learned APP though supports the impugned judgment but could not dispute the fact that both the -2- petitioners are old persons and they have never misused the privilege of bail and fairly admitted that it was a free fight between the family of both sides.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
6. After going through the impugned judgments including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of the revision 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, confirmed.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1991 and about 29 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation during the period and also remained in custody for 28 days. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, 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 it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison. In this way, I find it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.
11. The petitioners are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
-3-12. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/