Back
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Kalpana Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since both these applications arise out of same judgment and are interconnected, both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. These revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2004 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Session Judge, FTC-I, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2002/45 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in complain case No.C/1-102/1997, corresponding to T.R. No.415/2002; whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment they will have to undergo further sentence for a period of 2 months simple imprisonment; has been partly affirmed and the conviction u/s 406 IPC passed by the trial Court was set aside.
4. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant/O.P.No.2 was running his business of Sugar Cane Juice. Further case of
The court may modify the sentence based on the time elapsed since the incident, the age of the petitioners, and the absence of cruelty or mental depravity.
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing the need for a just and reasonable sentence considering the petitioner's circumstances.
The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence based on the petitioner's personal circumstances and time served, emphasizing the need for a just punishment.
The court considered the petitioner's age and the lengthy duration of the case in modifying the sentence, balancing the need for justice with the petitioner's circumstances.
The appellate court's power to modify sentences must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it, and the fine imposed should not exceed the jurisdi....
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to reflect the time served, considering the petitioner's personal circumstances and hardships.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the accused's age, hardship, and the duration of the trial, while maintaining the conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
