Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Khandait @ Vijay Kumar @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 97 of 2012
Vijay Khandait @ Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumhar @ Bijay Kumar,
S/o Kishore Kumhar, Resident of Village Bingtopang, P.O. &
P.S. Jhinkpani, District Singhbhum (West).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. M. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
Mr. Randhir Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
06/07.07.2021 Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned Senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Randhir Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the opposite party- State.
3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the
Judgment dated 20.12.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal
Appeal No. 45 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the conviction
and sentence of the petitioner under Section 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court has been
confirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed.
4. The learned trial court vide judgement of conviction
dated 14.09.2011 and the order of sentence dated 15.09.2011
passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 26 of 2009 / T.R. No.
29 of 2011 had convicted the petitioner under Section 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 (seven) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was
directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
further three months.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that his main argument
is confined to the quantum of sentence in the present case.
However, in order to advance his arguments on the quantum of
sentence, he has also referred to the facts and circumstances of
this case as recorded in the impugned judgements. The learned
Senior counsel has submitted that although the petitioner and
the co-accused namely, Gokul Gope were charged for offences
under Sections 307/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of Arms Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, but Gokul Gope was acquitted by the learned trial court
from all the charges and the petitioner was acquitted from the
charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court for the
offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code only.
6. The learned Senior counsel further submits that so far as
the injury is concerned, the doctor namely, Dr. Shiv Lal Kunkal
has been examined as P.W.-7, but the opinion on the nature of
injury stood reserved by him. The learned Senior counsel has
also submitted that the victim / informant namely, Munna
Kujur was examined as P.W.-4, but his statement was not
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
7. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel has
submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody
from 17.06.2008 to at least till 08.08.2012 when he was granted
bail by this Hon'ble Court i.e. for more than four years out of
seven years and he has no criminal antecedent, as reflected
from the impugned judgement passed by the learned trial court
itself. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the First
Information Report is of 09.06.2008 and much time has elapsed
since then and on the date of conviction on 14.09.2011, the
petitioner was aged about 27 years only and on the date of
occurrence, he was of a tender age of around 24 years.
8. While concluding his arguments, the learned Senior
counsel has submitted that considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the
petitioner has faced the rigorous of criminal case for a long
period, some sympathetic view may be taken by this Court and
sentence may be modified and limited to the period already
undergone by the petitioner in jail custody.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party- State
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that
the two prosecution witnesses particularly the P.W.-4 -
informant/victim and P.W. 7- the doctor, have fully supported
the prosecution case. He submits that the doctor has opined
that there was bullet injury which corroborates the evidence of
the informant of the case.
10. The learned A.P.P. has also referred to a judgement
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kedar Yadav reported in (2009) 17
SCC 280 to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that while sentencing, the nature of injury sustained and the
manner of occurrence are required to be taken into
consideration. He submits that considering the manner in
which the present offence has been given effect to by the
petitioner, the sentence of the petitioner does not call for any
lenient view by this Court.
11. The learned A.P.P. has also submitted that there is no
illegality or perversity in the conviction of the petitioner as well
as in sentencing the petitioner.
Findings of this Court
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgements passed by the learned
courts below, it appears that the victim/informant of the case
P.W.-4 has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated
in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence had taken place
on 08.06.2008 and the time was 3.30 P.M. He had gone to enjoy
one Mela with others and they had gone there on a Maruti van.
When they were enjoying the Mela, Vijay Khandait, the present
petitioner fired at his back. The bullet hit at his back, penetrated
into the body and came out from his body from the front side.
He further stated that the petitioner had also fired on his chest,
but it miss-fired. Thereafter, the petitioner started to run away
and fled away from the place of occurrence. The informant also
stated that the petitioner had fired twice or thrice upon him, but
only one bullet could hit him and subsequently, the victim was
taken to Sadar Hospital where he was given the treatment. This
Court finds that the victim has been thoroughly cross-examined
by the defence, but no material contradiction as such could be
found by the defence.
13. So far as the doctor is concerned, he was examined as
P.W.-7 and he has mentioned that the entry wound was on the
right back side and the cause of injury was bullet fire. This
Court finds that the evidence of the informant/victim is fully
corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W.-7.
14. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences on record, oral as well as
documentary, and have returned concurrent findings and have
convicted the petitioner under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code by well-reasoned judgements. There is no scope for
re-appreciation of the evidences on record and coming to a
different finding in absence of any perversity. There being no
illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned
judgements, the same do not call for any interference in
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
15. This Court also finds that since no fire arms were
recovered from the possession of the petitioner or otherwise
and therefore, the petitioner as well as the co-accused were
acquitted from the charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act
/34 of Indian Penal Code. This Court further finds that the
victim P.W.-4 has specifically stated in his evidence that the
petitioner had repeatedly fired upon him, but only one bullet
could hit him and the incident had taken place in Mela. This
Court is of the considered view that considering the nature of
injury and the manner in which the incident had taken place,
the learned courts below have already taken a balanced view in
sentencing the petitioner for Rigorous Imprisonment for seven
years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
16. While considering the judgement referred to by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-
State, this Court finds that all the relevant aspects of the matter
are required to be taken into consideration and mere long
passage of time per se is not a ground for reduction in sentence.
This Court is of the view that the serious nature of the offence
and the manner in which the occurrence was given effect to do
not call for any lenient view in favour of the petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is
hereby dismissed.
18. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
20. The office is directed to send back the lower court records
to the court concerned.
21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
