MOHINI DEVI@ MOHINI SHARMA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:31689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.806 of 2026
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
dated 26.02.2026, passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner – XVII, Ranchi in NDPS Case No.124 of 2025,
arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.359 of 2025]
---------
Mohini Devi @ Mohini Sharma, aged 66 years, Wife of Late
Iswar Sharma, resident of near Pragati Club, Kishoreganj
Road no.5/1, PO – GPO Ranchi & P.S – Sukhdeo Nagar,
District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) 834001. ….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijayant Verma, Advocate
For the State : None
---------
th
Order No.03/ Dated: 29 October, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant. None appears on behalf of the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2026,
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner –
XVII, Ranchi, in NDPS Case No.124 of 2025, arising out of
Sukhdeo Nagar P.S Case No.359 of 2025, whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Sections 21(b)/ 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS
Act), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and two months and to pay
fine of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand) for the offence under
Sections 21(b)/ 29 of the NDPS Act and in default of fine,
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.806 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31689
the appellant is further directed to undergo three months
simple imprisonment.
3. It appears that the prosecution has been launched
against the present appellant, a widow lady, on the
strength of F.I.R being Sukhdeo Nagar P.S Case No.359 of
2025(N) (NDPS Case No.124 of 2025) wherein the
appellant has confessed her guilt and admitted that 50
pouches of Heroin weighing 10.10 gm was recovered and
seized from her house on 10.07.2025 which was concealed
in a box of spectacles. She has also admitted that she had
no valid documents with respect to the same and was
seized in front of the witnesses. The police after
investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under
Sections 21(b)/ 29 of the NDPS Act and thereafter, charge
has been framed under the aforesaid sections of the NDPS
Act.
It further appears that instead of facing trial, the
appellant-widow lady has pleaded guilty and on that
strength, she has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 21(b)/ 29 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced
as stated above.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that he is not assailing the judgment of
conviction because it has been passed on the strength of
plead guilty, but so far as the sentencing part is concerned,
it has been submitted it is highly excessive. Reference has
been made to Section 32B of the NDPS Act and it has been
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.806 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31689
submitted that since there is no aggravating
circumstances, as prescribed under the law, rather there is
mitigating circumstances which is as follows:-
(i) the appellant is a widow lady, aged about
65 years,
(ii) although the impugned judgment shows
that the appellant-lady does have criminal
antecedent, but no factual matrix has been
disclosed, either in the form of case number or
anything else, suggesting that this lady has a
criminal antecedent,
(iii) the recovered narcotics is just above the
small quantity.
On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the sentencing part is on higher side
and as such, prayer has been made for reduction of the
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
5. No opposition has been made on behalf of the State
as nobody appears on behalf of the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
after going through the materials available on record, this
Court finds that the impugned judgment of sentencing is a
routine matter. The mitigating circumstances has not been
taken into proper perspective and accordingly, sentencing
part is reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellant, which is about one year and three months, but
the fine amount and the default punishment, as imposed by
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.806 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31689
the trial court, shall remain as it is.
7. The appellant is in custody and as such, she is
directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
8. With above modification in the sentencing part, the
present appeal is, hereby, disposed of.
9. Pending interlocutory application being I.A No.12424
of 2026, stands disposed of.
10. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 29 October, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /- NAFR
Uploaded on 29.10.2026
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.806 of 2026