SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 118 of 2014
Ashok Paswan … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party
—–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

—–

For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, APP
—–
06/Dated: 28/11/2019

The instant application is directed against the
judgment dated 23.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.38/2009,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 25.02.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Hazaribag in G.R. No.1688/2004 (T.R. No.266/2008/
T.R. No.141/2009), whereby the petitioner has been convicted
for the offence under Sections 323, Section448 and Section354 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months under
Section 323 IPC and SI for 6 months under Section 448 IPC and
SI for one year under Section 354 IPC, has been affirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his
argument on the question of sentence only and submits that
there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and at present
he is working in Delhi and living with his family and sending
him back to prison will not only ruin his career rather his entire
family will be ruined. As such some leniency may be granted by
this Court by modifying the sentence. He further submits that
the incident is of 2004 and the amended Section will not be
applicable in this case when minimum term of sentence has
been incorporated.

Per contra, the learned APP though supports the
impugned orders but did not dispute the fact that there is no
other criminal antecedent of the petitioner save and except the
present one. Further, he did not dispute the contention of the
petitioner that this occurrence is prior to the amendment made
in this Section in 2013 when the minimum period of
-2-
imprisonment under Section 354 IPC has been incorporated.

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 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 2004 and
15 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the
rigors of litigation for the last 15 years and also remained in
custody for 20 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. 10,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 3 months from
today before the Secretary, DLSA, Hazaribag.

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.

-3-

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Hazaribag.

(Deepak Roshan, J)
Pramanik/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation