IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1163 of 2014
Awadh Kishor Mishra ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party
———
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
———
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P
———
11/ 28.02.2020 The instant application is directed against the
judgment dated 28th August, 2014, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge- Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No.105 of
2008 , whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 18.11.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Gomia P.S. Case No. 59/2004
corresponding to G.R. No.703/2004 (T.R. No.472 of 2008),
whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC and
was sentence to undergo RI for 2 years, has been affirmed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his
argument on the question of sentence and submits that at
present the petitioner is aged about 63 years and somehow
earning his livelihood by giving tuition to small children. He
further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the
petitioner and he has been convicted only in this case as such,
looking to the age of the petitioner some leniency may be granted
by this Court.
3. Per contra, learned APP though supports the
impugned judgments however, fairly submits that the petitioner
is now aged about 63 years as such his sentence may be
modified in lieu of fine.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
5. After going through the impugned judgements
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
-2-
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.
6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is
apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2004 and
16 years have elapsed and the petitioner who is now more than
62 years, must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last
16 years and also remained in custody for 49 days. It is not
stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.
7. 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.
8. 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/-.
9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall deposit the
aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 2 months from
today before the Secretary, DLSA, Bokaro, failing which he shall
serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, this revision application is
disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Bokaro and also to the
petitioner-Awadh Kishor Mishra.
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Pramanik/
