Jharkhand High Court
Jalaluddin Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 September, 2021
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2005
---
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08.12.2004 passed by Sri P.K. Choubey, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC),
Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1996/45 of 2003.
---
Jalaluddin Mian ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Suraj Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
By Court: Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.12.2004 passed by Sri P.K. Choubey, 3rd
Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 81 of
1996/45 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code along with a fine of
Rs. 500/- with default clause.
3. It appears that the incident of quarrel has taken place on
14.11.1994 between the parties for cutting paddy crop over a piece of
land and for which an FIR has been lodged being Jamtara P.S. Case
No.88 of 1994 (G.R. No.602 of 1994) for the offence under Sections
324/307 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After investigation, the police has submitted final form and
the appellant has been charged under Sections 324/307 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. The trial court after considering the materials available on the
record, has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code. The trial court has recorded that there is no evidence that
the appellant has criminal antecedent and further the occurrence has
taken place due to land dispute but has denied the benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act only on the ground of nature of weapon i.e. Tangi.
6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the
incident is of the year 1994. The parties are next door neighbor. Now
they are living peacefully and further the appellant has sufficiently
been punished and he is in custody since 10.03.2021. It has been
submitted that the appellant is aged about 71 years. On the above facts,
it has been submitted that the sentencing part may be suitably
modified.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the
payer and submitted that there is ample evidence against the appellant
and the injured has also proved the incident.
8. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it appears that the appellant is aged about 71 years and he is in
custody since 10.03.2021. Further, the incident is of the year 1994. There
is no repetition of blow. The parties are next door neighbor and the
incident was due to cutting of paddy crop over a piece of land.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court feels that in the interest of justice, sentencing part should be
modified. Accordingly, order of sentence dated 8.12.2004 is modified to
the extent that the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period of
custody already undergone by the appellant. The fine amount of
Rs.500/- imposed by the trial court, is enhanced to Rs.5000/- and it
should be paid in favour of the injured witness.
10. Accordingly, present appeal is partly allowed with the above
modification and the appellant namely, Jalaluddin Mian is directed to
be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
11. The appellant is directed to remain present through Advocate
or personally to the National Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on
11.09.2021 at Jamtara Civil Court with fine amount of Rs.5000/-so that
the same should be given to the injured witness. In case of non-
payment of fine amount, the appellant is directed to undergo further 3
months simple imprisonment.
12. In view of disposal of present appeal, I.A. No.3049 of 2021 also
stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 6th day of September, 2021
Ravi/NAFR/
