Rabindra Nath Goswami And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in

Criminal Appeal No.57/2007, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 28.05.2007, passed by the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat in complaint Case No.56/2002 (T.R. No.25/2007), whereby the

petitioners were convicted under Sections 147, 148/149, 452, 341, 323 and 427 IPC and were sentenced to undergo SI for two years with fine of

Rs.500/-each for the offence u/s 452 IPC, six months SI u/s 427 of IPC, six months SI u/s 147 IPC, six months SI u/s 148/149 of IPC, one month SI

u/s 341 IPC and further SI for one year each u/s 323 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further SI for 15

days and all sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is land dispute between the parties, however, the petitioners are not habitual

offenders. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties for the same land which is in dispute. He further submits that

they have never misused the privilege of bail. As such, some leniency may be granted by this Court. He further submits that since petitioner no.4 has

expired, as such, the instant application abates against him.

Per contra, the learned APP and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 have supported the impugned orders and submitted that there is no error

whatsoever in the impugned orders and the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

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

After going through the impugned orders including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited 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 2002 and 17 years have elapsed and the

petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 17 years and they also remained in custody for 13 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.

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. However, in the

facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioners should pay fine.

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

It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- each within a period of 2 months from today before the learned

Secretary, DLSA, Bokaro.

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

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their 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, Bokaro.