AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhagwati Prasad, C.J.—None appeared for the Petitioner.
This Revision petition has been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Giridih, whereby the Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
The accused persons were tried in the trial court for the offence u/s 323, 341, 427, 34 and 324 IPC. The learned Appellate court had set aside the conviction of the Appellants/Petitioners before the appellate court u/s 427/34. However, conviction of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 u/s 323, 341/24 was maintained and the conviction u/s 341 and 324 IPC was also upheld against all the Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 was found guilty u/s 324 IPC and therefore no conviction was recorded u/s 323 IPC. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and the sentence was reduced to admonition. The sentence of Petitioner No. 1 u/s 341 IPC was also reduced to admonition. Further, the sentence against Petitioner No. 1 u/s 324 IPC was reduced to six months from one year.
The occurrence is of 1996. We are in 2011. This Court considers that it would not be appropriate to send the accused behind the bar after so many years. In the eventuality, it is considered appropriate that instead of maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for Petitioner No. 1, a fine be imposed on him and accordingly, a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand) is imposed on Petitioner No. 1-Parshu Ram Mahto. If the fine is not paid within a period of three months, the original order of of sentence of six months passed by the learned Sessions Judge will come into operation and he will have to serve the sentence.
The sentence under other Sections in which benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and admonition was awarded is not interfered.
With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.