Champa Nayak @ Champa Lal Nayak vs State of Jharkhand

The instant application has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.08.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed with modification in sentence.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 561 of 1995 corresponding to T.R. No. 1285 of 2012 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for two years S.I with fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been modified to the extent that the petitioner was directed to undergo S.I of 6 months with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already served the custody for more than 9 months as such, some leniency may be granted by this Court. She further submits that this is a single case in which the petitioner has been convicted and there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner. She further contended that interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence modified by the learned appellate court be further modified and he may be exempted from payment of fine.

Per contra, the learned APP for the State though supports the impugned orders but could not dispute the contention that the petitioner is not a habitual offender.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and after going through the impugned orders including the lower court records and keeping in the mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the scope under revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of 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.

So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1995 and about 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years and also remained in custody for 257 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and 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 since the petitioner has already served more than the period ordered by the learned appellate court, interest of justice would be sufficed if the imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- is modified to Rs.10,000/- only.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and modified by the learned appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- only.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro within a period of 3 months from today, failing which he shall serve S.I of 1 month.

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 the fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.

Let the copy of the order be sent to the learned trial court, District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro and also the petitioner forthwith.