Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nJharkhand High Court\nButan Sahu @ Birendra Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2022                                   1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                  Cr. Revision No. 464 of 2006\n1. Butan Sahu @ Birendra Sahu\n2. Sampati Devi                               ..... Petitioners\n                              Versus\nState of Jharkhand                       .....       Opposite Party\n                       With\n                  Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2006\nAnil Kumar Sahu @ Anil Sao                    ..... Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState of Jharkhand                       .....       Opposite Party\n                              With\n                  Cr. Revision No. 593 of 2006\nSurjeet Sao                                   ..... Petitioner\n                              Versus\nThe State of Jharkhand                   .....       Opposite Party\n                              ---------\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN\n                       ---------\nFor the Petitioners    : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate\nFor the State          : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP\n                              --------\n06/ 09.06.2022         Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior\n\ncounsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arup Kumar, Dey, learned APP\n\nfor the opposite party-State.\n\n2.         All these applications arise out of common judgment, as\n\nsuch, the same are inter-connected and being heard together and\n\ndispose of by this common order.\n\n3.         All these applications have been filed assailing the\n\njudgment dated 07.04.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial\n\nCommissioner-I, Khunti in criminal appeal No.102 of 2003,\n\nwhereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed\n\nand the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated\n\n27.08.2003, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Khunti, in G.R. No.317\n\nof 1998, T.R. No. 304 of 2003, whereby the petitioners have been\n                                    2\n\n\nconvicted for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code\n\nand Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentence to\n\nundergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 498\n\nA IPC and in default of payment of fine, two months further SI and\n\nalso sentenced to undergo SI for six months under each Section 3/4\n\nof Dowry Prohibition Act with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in\n\ndefault of fine further imprisonment of two months, have been\n\nsustained.\n\nCr. Revision No.464 of 2006:\n\n4.           At the outset, Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel\n\nsubmits that the petitioner No.2-Sampati Devi, in the aforesaid\n\napplication has passed away in the month of May, 2021. As such,\n\nthe case will abate against her. The death certificate of the petitioner\n\nNo.2 has been produced before this Court and the same is taken on\n\nrecord.\n\n5.           So far as petitioner No.1- Butan Sahu @ Birendra Sahu\n\n(father-in-law) is concerned he is aged about 84 years. As such, in\n\nthe interest of justice the sentence may be modified due to rigors of\n\nlitigation and the old age of the petitioner No.1.\n\nCr. Revision No.537 of 2006 & Cr. Revision No.593 of 2006:\n\n6.           Learned senior counsel further submits that in these two\n\ncases the petitioners are relative to the victim and the maximum\n\nconviction was two years in which all of them have undergone\n\ncustody for about three months and they have never misused the\n                                    3\n\n\nprivilege of bail. As such, interest of justice would not be sufficed\n\nby sending them back to custody.\n\n            He further submits that even the victim has died, as such\n\nthe sentence awarded by the learned trial court may be modified in\n\nlieu of fine.\n\n7.          Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned APP for the State supports\n\nthe impugned judgments and submits that there is no error in the\n\nfinding of the learned trial court's judgment as well as the learned\n\nappellate court's judgment. However, looking to the rigors of\n\nlitigation and age of the few petitioners the sentence may be\n\nmodified in lieu of fine.\n\n8.          Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after\n\ngoing through the impugned judgments including the lower courts\n\nrecords and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revisional\n\njurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the\n\ncourts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by\n\nthe learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is,\n\nhereby sustained.\n\n9.          So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from\n\nrecord that the incident is of the year 1998 and 24 years have\n\nelapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the mental agony\n\ndue to prolonged litigation for the last 24 years. Further, the\n\npetitioner No. 1(in Cr. Revision No.464 / 2006) also remained in\n                                   4\n\n\ncustody for about 66 days and aged about 84 years and petitioner\n\n(in Cr. Revision No. 537/2006) remained in custody for 151 days\n\nand petitioner (in Cr. Revision No. 593/ 2006) remained in\n\ncustody for 117 days, respectively and during entire period of bail\n\nthey never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident\n\ndoes not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any\n\nmental depravity.\n\n10.        In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no\n\nfruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back\n\nto prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the\n\nsentence is modified in lieu of fine.\n\n11.        Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld\n\nby the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the\n\npetitioner (in criminal revision No. 464 of 2006) is sentenced to\n\nundergo for the period already undergone.\n\n12.        So far as petitioner (in Cr. Revision No.537 of 2006\n\nand Cr. Revision No. 593 of 2006 respectively) are sentenced to\n\nundergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment\n\nof fine of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) each.\n\n13.        It is made clear that petitioners namely, Anil Kumar\n\nSahu @ Anil Sao and Surjeet Sao of Cr. Revision No.537 of 2006\n\nand Cr. Revision No. 593 of 2006, respectively, shall pay the\n\naforesaid fine of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) each within a period\n\nof 4 months from today before the Secretary, DLSA, Khunti,\n                                                5\n\n\n            failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by\n\n            the learned courts below.\n\n            14.        With    the   aforesaid     observation,   direction   and\n\n            modification in sentence only, all the criminal revision\n\n            applications stands disposed of.\n\n            15.        The petitioner in Cr. Revision No.464 of 2006) shall\n\n            be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.\n\n            16.        So far as petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2006\n\n            and Cr. Revision No. 593 of 2006, respectively is concerned they\n\n            shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject\n\n            to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.\n\n            17.        Let the copy of this order be communicated to the\n\n            court below, Secretary, DLSA, Khunti and also to the petitioners\n\n            (in Cr. Revision No.537 of 2006 and Cr. Revision No. 593 of\n\n            2006) through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.\n\n            18.        Let the lower court record be sent back to the court\n\n            concerned forthwith.\n\n                                                          (Deepak Roshan, J.)\n\n\nPramanik/