Ram Krishna Chick @ Ramu Baraik @ Ramu Baraika vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 28th September, 2013, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th July, 2013, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 830 of 2007 arising out of Palkot, P.S. Case No. 62 of 2007 (T.R. No. 396 of 2013), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 387 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 387 of the I.P.C. and he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 120-B of the I.P.C, and in default of payment he was further directed to undergo S.I. for three months, has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other co-convicts of the instant case has been discharged from custody in lieu of fine. She further submits that even otherwise the petitioner is not a habitual offender and this is a single case in which he has been convicted and sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather his entire family will face consequence. As such in interest of justice it would suffice if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supports the impugned order but did not dispute the fact that the other co-convicts have been discharged in other case subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submission and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by 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, 2007 and more than 12 year has elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 370 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather the sentence should be 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 the payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of four months from today before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Gumla, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

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 to the court concerned forthwith.

Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Gumla through FAX.