Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2002
...
Against the judgment and conviction dated 19.2.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.
54 of 2001/24 of 2001 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
Giridih.
....
1. Parshu Ram Mahto
2. Upendra Mahto
3. Umesh Mahto ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : None
For the State : Mr.R.C.P.Sah, A.P.P.
....
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
.....
By Court: None appeared for the petitioner.
2. This Revision petition has been filed against the order of the Sessions
Judge, Giridih, whereby the Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal
preferred against the judgment passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate,
Giridih.
3. The accused persons were tried in the trial court for the offence under
Section 323, 341, 427,34 and 324 IPC. The learned Appellate court had set
aside the conviction of the appellants/petitioners before the appellate court
under Section 427/34. However, conviction of the petitioner nos.2 and 3
under Section 323, 341/24 was maintained and the conviction under Section
341 and 324 IPC was also upheld against all the petitioners. The petitioner
no.1 was found guilty under Section 324 IPC and therefore no conviction
was recorded under Section 323 IPC. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 was granted
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and the sentence was reduced to
admonition. The sentence of petitioner no.1 under Section 341 IPC was also
reduced to admonition. Further, the sentence against petitioner no.1 under
Section 324IPC was reduced to six months from one year.
3. The occurrence is of 1996. We are in 2011. This Court considers that
it would not be appropriate to send the accused behind the bar after so
many years. In the eventuality, it is considered appropriate that instead of
maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for petitioner no.1, a fine be
imposed on him and accordingly, a fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) is
imposed on petitioner no.1-Parshu Ram Mahto. If the fine is not paid within a
2.
period of three months, the original order of of sentence of six months
passed by the learned Sessions Judge will come into operation and he will
have to serve the sentence.
4. The sentence under other Sections in which benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act and admonition was awarded is not interfered.
5. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision petition is
dismissed.
( Bhagwati Prasad, C.J.)
Jharkhand High Court,Ranchi
The 4th April, 2011
G.Jha/NAFR