AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 29th July, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 31st May, 2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 272 of 2009
arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009, corresponding to T.R. No. 38 of 2013, wherein he has been convicted for the offence under Section
411 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, has been affirmed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are vital contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the
informant P.W.1 has not produced any document to substantiate its claim that the bullocks were of the informant as such the seizure itself has not
been proved. He further submits that the height of the bullocks as informed by the informant was not tallying with that of the seized bullocks. He also
submits that the recovery place has not been proved and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the bullocks which were seized was
not of the informant rather it was of the petitioner himself.
Per contra, the learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that under the revisional jurisdiction there is
very limited scope and the same can be invoked only if there is any procedural error and/or there is perversity in the order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impunged order including the L.C.R..
The learned appellate court has categorically held that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the fact that the said bullocks were of the
informant. So the contention of the petitioner that the height of bullocks were different as alleged in the F.I.R. does not make any difference. Keeping
in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and
upheld by the learned appellate court as such the same is confirmed.
However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2009 and more than 10 years have elapsed and it
appears from the record that the petitioner has remained in custody for some days but did not misuse the privilege of bail. It is also a fact that 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 considered opinion
that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence should be
modified in lieu of fine.
Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court, is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already
undergone subject to payment of Rs.1,000/-.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.1,000/- within a period of two months from today before the learned District Legal
Services Authority, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.
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 bond subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition.
Let the order be communicated to the learned trial Court through FAX.
Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.