Bablu Hansda And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Both the applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order, as both the application arises out of one impugned order.

The aforesaid revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No.124/2006, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar, in P.C.R Case No.598/1999, corresponding to T.R. No.18/2006, whereby the petitioners have been found guilty for the offence committed under Sections 147, 323, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on the question of sentence, the learned appellate court modified the sentence with respect to offence under Section 379 IPC to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo S.I for 3 months only.

On the basis of written complaint by opposite party no.2 on 18.12.1999, P.C.R Case No.598/1998 was registered against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C had issued summons to the petitioners under Sections 147, 323, 379 IPC. Subsequently, Section 447 of IPC was added.

The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the entire materials available on record convicted the petitioners under Sections 147/323/447 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 3 months S.I. and further convicted them for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to undergo S.I for one year. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned trial court, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Deoghar being Cr. Appeal No.124/2006. The learned appellate court after examining the evidences concurred with the finding of the learned trial court. However, only with respect to sentence for the offence committed under Section 379, he reduced it from one year to three months only.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued the case and submitted that there was an admitted land dispute between the parties and with some ulterior motive the complaint petition was filed and prosecution/complainant has failed to prove its case and the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has miserably failed to appreciate the fact that it was a land dispute and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has supported the order and submitted that there is no error whatsoever in the order impugned and both the instant applications deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order along with the case records. It appears that before the learned court below, the prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of offence against all the petitioners and both the courts below after meticulously examining the evidences and argument adduced by the both parties have rightly convicted the petitioners. In my considered opinion, keeping in mind the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it has been brought on record that they have already gone in custody for about thirteen days, and they have never misused the privilege of Bail.

The case is also pending since 1999 and certainly in the last twenty years the petitioners must have suffered rigors of litigation and also remained in custody for some time. In this way, I find that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and concurred/modified by the learned appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners of both the revision applications are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone. It appears that they have availed the privilege of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, the petitioners are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

With the aforesaid observations, both the revision applications are dismissed.

Let the lower courts records be sent to the concerned court, forthwith.