Meena Devi And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases.

Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, the learned A.P.P.s appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State in Cr. Rev. No. 286 of 2014 and Cr. Rev. No. 1394 of 2016 respectively.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 286 of 2014 namely Meena Devi was convicted by the learned trial court for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for a period of 1 year only, but while dismissing her appeal, the learned lower appellate court held that the sentence of the petitioner Meena Devi would be for two years. He submits that this happened because of the reason that the co-accused in the present case namely Raju Bansfore (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1394 of 2016) was convicted by the learned trial court for a period of three years with maximum sentence of three years and while partly allowing his appeal, he was ultimately convicted only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and his sentence was reduced to two years. He submits that ultimately both the petitioners stood convicted for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and punishment of the petitioner namely Raju Bansfore has been reduced from three years to two years and the punishment of Meena Devi has been enhanced from one year to two years without assigning any reason and without there being any petition for enhancement of sentence. He submits that the learned lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to enhance the punishment of the petitioner Meena Devi in an appeal filed by her that too without assigning any reason.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1396 of 2016 has remained in custody for almost 9 months during the pendency of this revision petition and has also remained in custody for some time at the stage of trial. Accordingly, he prays that the sentence of Raju Bansfore (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1394 of 2016) may be confined to the period already undergone. He also submits that if this Court finds proper, some fine amount may be imposed and the sentence of the petitioner Raju Bansfore be modified.

So far as the petitioner Meena Devi (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 286 of 2014) is concerned, he submits that she has also remained in custody at the stage of trial for some time and also at the stage of revision before this court. He further submits that considering the fact that Meena Devi is a female, some lenient view may be taken and the sentence be modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner Meena Devi and if found proper, some fine may be imposed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from both the petitioners, one mobile each was recovered for which, they have been ultimately convicted under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code only.

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State have submitted that it is not in dispute that from both the petitioners, one mobile each was recovered. They further submit that it is also not in dispute that Meena Devi was convicted only for a period of one year by the learned trial court, but the learned lower appellate court held Meena Devi to undergo sentence for two years. The learned counsels submit that it appears that since the cases of both the petitioners were taken up together by the learned lower appellate court, such judgement has been passed.

Arguments are concluded.

Put up these cases tomorrow i.e. on 04.09.2020 under the heading "For Final Disposal".