Jharkhand High Court
Jialal Hansda @ Jiyasar Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 694 of 2019
With
I. A. No. 6512 of 2019
With
I. A. No. 6513 of 2019
1.Jialal Hansda @ Jiyasar Hansda
2. Binod Hembram ..... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : M/s Jitendra Shankar Singh
& Pranabesh Kumar Paul, Advocates
For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P.
--------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for
the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
--------
9/ 01.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for
the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction
dated 27.05.2019 and Order of sentence dated 29.05.2019, passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara, in Special
POCSO Case No. 7 of 2018, whereby both these appellants have been
convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The dead body of the deceased girl was found. There is no
eyewitness to the occurrence of murder and though it appears from the
impugned Judgment that these appellants faced the trial for the offences under
Sections 376-D, 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the POCSO Act, but after the trial, the appellants have been convicted for the
offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code only. It is also
apparent from the impugned Judgment that there is no eyewitness to the
occurrence and there is only circumstantial evidence against the appellants.
4. These appellants claimed to be juveniles on the date of
occurrence, and by order dated 24.10.2019, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamtara, was directed by this Court to conduct an enquiry with respect to plea
of juvenility of the appellants. The enquiry report has since been received,
which shows that both these appellants were found to be juveniles on the date
of occurrence. Appellant Jailal Hansda @ Jiyasar Hansda was found to be
aged 15 years, 8 months and 11 days, whereas, appellant Binod Hembram
was found to be aged 15 years 9 months and 16 days on the date of
occurrence.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in view
of the specific finding about the juvenility of the appellants, the appellants
could not have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for
the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine, rather they
could have been awarded sentence upto three years only. It is also submitted
that appellant No.1 is in custody since 1.2.2018 and appellant No.2 is in
custody since 25.1.2018 and both of them have served the sentence of three
years, which is the maximum permissible sentence to be undergone by the
juveniles. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have
otherwise a good case on merits also, inasmuch as, there is no eyewitness to
the occurrence and there is only circumstantial evidence against the appellants
and it is a fit case, in which, the appeal itself be allowed and the impugned
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the
prayer, submitting that there is strong circumstantial evidence against these
appellants and the confessional statement of one the appellants had led to the
recovery of cloth of the deceased.
7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, we are not in a
position to interfere with the Judgment of conviction passed against the
appellants, as the Judgment appears to be well founded and based on the
evidence on record, including the evidence of the I.O., who has stated about
the recovery on the basis of confessional statement of one of the appellants.
As such, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court below against
the appellants is sustained.
8. So far as the sentence part is concerned, since the appellants have
been found to be juveniles aged between 15-16 years on the date of
occurrence, we are of the considered view that sentence of imprisonment for
life cannot be sustained against these appellants. The appellants have already
undergone the maximum sentence to which juvenile could be sentenced.
9. In that view of the matter, the Order of sentence
dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Special POCSO Case No. 7
of 2018, is hereby, set aside, and both these appellants are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for three years each for the offences under
Sections 302 1and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The appellants shall be released from custody forthwith, and if it
is found that they have not completed the sentence as yet, they shall be
released upon completion of the sentence as modified above.
11. This appeal accordingly, stands disposed of with the modification
in the sentence, as above. Both the interlocutory applications also stand
disposed of.
(H. C. Mishra, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
R.Kr.
