Baban Ram vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 12.08.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Daltonganj in Criminal

Appeal No.33/2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

06.03.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with G.R. No.362/2001 (T.R. No.1137/2009),

corresponding to Hussainabad P.S. Case No.36 of 2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and was

sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC and further RI for 3 months each for the

offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and the sentences were directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, he was further

directed for additional SI for one month, has been affirmed.

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction submits that he does not want to press this case on merit and he confines his argument

on the question of sentence only. He further submits that petitioner is aged about 70 years and totally dependent upon his son. He further submits that

there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and this is a single case in which he has been convicted. As such, some leniency may be granted by

this Court.

Per contra, the learned APP fairly submits that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine, looking to the age of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

After going through the impugned orders including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submission of the petitioner 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.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2001 and 18 years have elapsed and the petitioner

must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 18 years and also remained in custody for 82 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever

misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison who is now

aged about 70 years rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already

undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the Secretary, DLSA,

Palamau at Daltonganj.

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Palamau at Daltonganj.