Considering his age, character and proprietary was of the view that minimum punishment should be given to the petitioner and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of two years. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Feku Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2003].
The facts of the case were associated with an appeal that was directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25.02.2003, wherein the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed and 2 years of rigorous imprisonment was sentenced to him for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. The counsel representing the petitioner condemned the said impugned judgments. He stated that the judgments were irrational and was called for interference. The counsel also submitted that the nature of the injury was not considered by the courts below properly. It was submitted that the nature of the injury was a direct blow on the head and as stated under section 323 of the IPC, the injury cannot be defined as ‘grievous injury’.
The opposition party’s counsel vehemently opposed the prayer and stated that all the evidence found were recorded concurrently by the courts below no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and come to different findings in revisional jurisdiction. The counsel also stated that the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel in connection to the nature of the injury were well-considered and the doctor held that the injury was indeed serious and grievous in nature.
It was reported that on 31.05.1990, the said injured was cleaning his shop situated near the main road and the petitioner caused inconveniences to his customers by parking his cycle there. The servant shifted the cycle and at that time the petitioner brought a Balua and attacked the servant on his head and caused him injury. According to the doctor, the injury was a sharp cutting injury 5 cm wide and 1.5 cm deep on the head and the second injury is one cut injury 3cm long on the scalp.
Considering all the facts and submissions, The Hon’ble Court held “… Considering the fact that the petitioner is more than 69 years of age and has faced the criminal case for about 32 years now, this court finds that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to some extent. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioner is hereby reduced to a period of one year with fine of Rs. 15,000/- . This revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled… ”
Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu