Dilip Kumar Paswan @ Dilip Paswan and Others vs State of Jharkhand

Heard, Mr. B. K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although this case has been tagged and listed with Cr. Revision No. 867/2014 in which an adjournment is being sought for, he wants to argue his case as the case has been admitted on the limited point of sentence only.

Ms. Talat Praween, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 867/2014 has prayed for adjournment in her case as this case has to be argued by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate but she has no instructions as to when the counsel will be available to argue the case. However, she does not have any objection, if the case being Cr. Revision No. 1094/2014 is taken up today and Cr. Revision No. 867/2014 is segregated.

Accordingly, the Cr. Revision No. 1094/2014 has been taken up.

Mr. B. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the point of sentence that the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of about 28 days and as on date he is 34 years of age. The learned counsel has further submitted that the incident is of the year 2009 and accordingly, 11 years have already expired from the date of the incident and this petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 147/323/342 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code with a maximum sentence under Section 147 of IPC for a period of one year. He submits that the present case arises out of family dispute, as it is the specific case of the prosecution that the entire incident had happened due to the fact that the accused persons sold his share along with the share of land of the informant to the extent of two kathas. The learned counsel has also submitted that the informant of the case Shanti Devi was examined by the doctor and the doctor has opined that she has suffered simple injury resulting in swelling on left foot 1"x ½" caused by hard and blunt substance. The learned counsel has submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the sentence be modified and the petitioner is also ready to pay victim compensation to the informant of the case of any amount as may be deemed proper by this Court.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has submitted that the petitioner has not even served 50% of the punishment. However, he does not dispute the fact that there appears to be dispute amongst the family members in connection with sale of some property. He also submits that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, then some fine amount may be imposed and some victim compensation may also be directed to be paid to the informant of the case and the said amount may not be less than Rs. 15,000/-, considering the facts and circumstances.

Arguments are concluded.

Post Cr. Revision No. 1094 of 2014 on 05.10.2020.

Cr. Revision No. 867 of 2014

Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the opposite party-State is present.

Considering the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Talat Praween, the Cr. Revision No. 867 of 2014 is adjourned for tomorrow i.e. on 23.09.2020, so that she may inform this Court about the date on which the learned arguing counsel for the petitioners Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha will be available to argue his case.

Post Cr. Revision No. 867 of 2014 on 23.09.2020.