Hiralal Sahu And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2353 Jhar

                                             1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 311 of 2012

                     Hiralal Sahu and Ors.                  ...    ...    Petitioners
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand          ...       ...         Opp. Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

07/14.07.2021

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

Arguments of the petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment of six months was given to the petitioners for offence under Sections 323 of the IPC. He further submits that before the learned appellate court, only the conviction under Section 323 of IPC was sustained and the learned appellate court reduced the sentence to three months. So far as conviction under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners were acquitted for the said offences. He submits that the present offence of the petitioners is the first offence.

4. The learned counsel further submits that so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they had surrendered before the learned court below on 13.04.2012 and petitioner No. 3 had surrendered on 02.05.2012 and they were directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2012 and thereafter a few days must have been taken by them to furnish the bail bond. He submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have

certainly remained in judicial custody for more than 15 days and so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he has remained in judicial custody for more than 10 days. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 27, 23 and 50 years of age respectively on the date of conviction i.e., 24.07.2010. He also submits that the First Information Report in the present case is relating to the incident of 29.03.2006, but the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable delay of one month and 13 days on 10.05.2006. He further submits that the petitioners have faced the rigorous of criminal case for a long period and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified to the period already undergone in judicial custody by the petitioners. He also submits that some fine amount may be imposed by this Court which may be remitted to the victim of the case. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the nephew of the informant and petitioner No.-3 is the brother of the informant and there is land dispute between the parties. Arguments of the opposite party-State

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has submitted that although the learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code as a fracture was found in the body of the victim which was supported by X- Ray plate. However the learned appellate court rejected the evidence of the X-ray plate on the ground that the same was not exhibited by the doctor but was exhibited by the investigating officer of the case and was held to be not formally proved and the petitioners were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted for offence under Section 325 of the IPC. She also submits that P.W.-6 (the doctor) was also examined who had seen the initial injury on the body of the victim and given the

injury report and had opined that the injuries were simple in nature, but for injury no.-3, the order was reserved.

6. The learned counsel for the State also does not dispute the fact that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. However, she submits that in case this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, some fine amount/victim compensation may be imposed and be remitted to the victim upon due identification.

7. Arguments concluded.

8. Post this case on 22.07.2021 for judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul