Subol Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 19th February, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, in

Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 29th June, 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No. 50 of 1998 (T.R. No. 433 of 2012),

whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eighteen months

with fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence committed under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months for the

offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only. He further submits that the petitioner is aged

about 55 years and sending him back to prison at this age of life will ruin his entire family. Further, there is no other criminal antecedent against the

petitioner and he is not a habitual offender rather this is a single case in which he has been convicted as such some leniency may be granted by this

Court and the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

No body appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 inspite of the fact that a Vakalatnama was duly filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2. Even on

previous all occasions, no body appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2. However, Mr. S.K.Srivastava counsel for the State argues on behalf of the

opposite parties. He could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. He fairly submits that looking to the age of

the petitioner his sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

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

submissions of the petitioner 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, 1998 and about 22 years has elapsed and it

appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 102 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. 20,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of two months from today before the learned

District Legal Services Authority, Rajmahal, 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 a copy of this order be sent to the court below and Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rajmahal through FAX.