Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 28.01.2014, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,

Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.75/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with the co-convict-Md. Jamir Ali @ Asamia has

been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in

G.R. No.3386/2010), whereby the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500 each for the offence

under Section 392 IPC and further to undergo RI for one year each for the offence under Section 411 IPC and the sentences were directed to run

concurrently, has been affirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent

of the petitioner and this is a single case in which he has been convicted and he is not a professional or habitual offender. He further submits that the

petitioner remained in custody for about 7 months as such interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Per contra, the learned APP supports the impugned orders, and submits that there is no error in the orders impugned and the instant application

deserves to be dismissed.

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 submissions of the petitioner and 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 2010 and 9 years have elapsed and the petitioner

must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 9 years and also remained in custody for 276 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 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.20,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the Secretary, DLSA, East

Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

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, Jamshedpur.