Sushil Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 24.05.2014, passed by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge V, Palamau at

Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 07.02.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No.1446/2003, arising out of

Manatu P.S. Case No.44/2003, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 325 of the Indian Penal

Code and was sentenced to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 341, S.I for 6 months under Section 323, SI for 3 months for the

offence under Section 427 IPC and one year SI with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 325 IPC, has been affirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only and submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender

and there is no criminal antecedent as against him. He further submits that the petitioner is a sole bread earner of his family and his entire family is

dependent upon him. In this view of the matter, he submits that the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

Per contra, the learned APP supports the impugned orders, but could not dispute the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

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 learned counsel for the

petitioner and also 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 2003 and 16 years have elapsed and the petitioner

must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 16 years and also remained in custody for 78 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.15,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.15,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the Secretary, DLSA,

Palamau at Daltonganj.

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, Daltonganj.