Lal Bihari Yadav vs State of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 22.05.2014, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner alongwith the co-convict-Kunjesh Karigar has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. Case No. 347 of 2009/T.R. No. 122 of 2013 whereby the petitioner alongwith the co-convict were convicted for the offence under Section 25 (1-b) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2½ years for each offence and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, has been affirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only and submits that the petitioner has already served the custody for about 71 days as such, some leniency may be granted by this Court. Further, now he is not involved in any criminal activity. Though he was falsely implicated in one another case being S.T. Case No. 121 of 2009, but he has been acquitted by the trial court.

Per contra, the learned APP for the State submits that it is a very serious offence as such, no leniency be granted to the petitioner. However, he fairly admitted that no criminal case is pending against him.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and after going through the impugned orders including the lower court records and keeping in the mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the scope under revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of 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.

So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2009 and about 11 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 11 years and also remained in custody for more than 2 months. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and 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 petitioner back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Latehar within a period of 2 months from today.

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 the fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

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

Let the copy of the order be sent to the learned trial court, District Legal Services Authority, Latehar and also the petitioner forthwith.