Rustam Ansari And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2002, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2002/06 of 1997 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.1997 passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 367 of 1984, whereby the petitioner nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 were convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for each offences and petitioner nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 and 324 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 324 IPC and also R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, has been affirmed.

During the pendency of the instant application, the petitioner nos. 4, 6 and 7 have passed away as such, their names were deleted from the array of petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2019.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a case and counter case between the parties and they are not the professional offenders and the learned trial court has committed a gross error in not releasing these petitioners on probation in view of the provision under Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code. He further submits that all the petitioners are very old and sending the petitioners back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose and it is a fit case in which they should get benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C.

Per-contra learned APP for the State though supports the impugned orders but did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are not professional offenders. However, she submits that their sentence may be suspended in lieu of fine.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 1984 and about 35 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 35 years and also remained in custody for some time. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail and further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity. In a situation of this nature especially looking to the respective age of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners 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 petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- each.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 2,500/- each before the District Legal Services Authority, Godda within a period of 3 months from today.

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 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 and District Legal Services Authority, Godda forthwith.