Jharkhand High Court
Sadanand Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 335 of 2012
1.Sadanand Das
2.Jadu Das @ Yadu Das
3.Tuku Das (died on 02.02.2017)
4.Ratan Das
All sons of Late Mangal Das,
All residents of Village- Pathna, Bairagitola,
P.O.- Pathna, P.S.- Barharwa,
District- Sahebganj ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
06/10.09.2021 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned A.P.P. appearing
for the Opposite Party-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Petitioner No.3 (Tuku Das) has already died on 02.02.2017 and
an affidavit annexing his death certificate has been filed by the
State. He further submitted that the Petitioner No.3 has already
deposited the total fine amount of Rs.2,300/- imposed upon
him by the learned trial court and he has taken instructions
from the legal representatives of the Petitioner No.3 that they
are not interested in pursuing the case and therefore, the
present criminal revision application may be treated as abated,
so far as the Petitioner no.3 is concerned.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State is present.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the present criminal revision application stands
abated, so far as it is related to the Petitioner No.3 (Tuku Das).
6. Office is directed to delete the name of Petitioner No.3 from
the cause title of the criminal revision application in red ink.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is
confined to the remaining petitioners namely, Sadanand Das,
Jadu Das and Ratan Das only.
8. The present criminal revision application is directed against the
Judgment dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned District &
Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2011
whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court
confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Rajmahal in G.R. Case No. 269 of 2004 / T.R. No. 1007 of
2011 (arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case No. 62/2004) and
dismissed the criminal appeal.
9. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioners under
Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had
sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days
under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple
Imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.300/- under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 07 days, Simple
Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section
325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month and
Simple Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month
and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
10. In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners
confined his submissions on the point of sentences of the
petitioners only. He submitted that the occurrence is of
15.07.2004 and since then, more than 17 years have elapsed and
the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a
long period and they have no criminal antecedents. He further
submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have remained in
judicial custody from 08.05.2012 to 22.05.2012 during pendency
of the present criminal revision application and they have
already deposited the total fine amount of Rs.2,300/- each
imposed upon them by the learned trial court as apparent from
the order-sheet dated 17.08.2011 and 19.08.2011 of the learned
trial court and the present age of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4
are 66 years, 65 years and 55 years respectively and therefore, a
sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the
petitioners may be modified to some extent.
Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
11. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State submitted that
if this Court is inclined to modify the sentences of the
petitioners, then the fine amounts may be enhanced and the
same may be remitted to the two victims of the case.
Findings of this Court
12. The case was registered as Barharwa P.S. Case No. 62/2004 on
the basis of the written report of the Informant and after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
cognizance of the offence was taken and charges were framed
against the petitioners to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
13. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine
witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is Horen Das, P.W.-2 is
Krishna Das who is the son of the informant, P.W.-3 is Astami
Devi who is an injured witness and the wife of the informant,
P.W.-4 is Jaideo Das who is the nephew of the informant, P.W.-
5 is Naresh Prasad Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the
case, P.W.-6 is Bishwanath Das who is the informant himself,
P.W.-7 is Subit Rajak who has been declared hostile, P.W.-8 is
Mahmood Alam who is the Medical Officer who had examined
the informant and his wife Astami Devi and P.W.-9 is the
Keshar Prasad who had conducted X-ray on the informant and
found fracture injury on the right side of frontal parietal bone
of his skull. The prosecution exhibited the formal F.I.R. as
Exhibit-1, requisition of injury report as Exhibit-2, true copy of
fardbeyan as Exhibit-3, injury reports of the informant and
Astami Devi as Exhibit-4 and 4/1 respectively and opinion on
X-ray report of the informant as Exhibit-5.
14. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of
the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C wherein they denied the incriminating substances put to
them and claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not
adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.
15. The learned trial court considered the materials on record
and recorded that the witnesses have consistently supported
the prosecution case in the statements before police as well as
before court and their evidence is corroborated by medical
evidence. The learned trial court found that Bishwanath Das
and Astami Devi have stated before the court that they
sustained head injury on their persons and Doctor P.W.-8 and
P.W.-9 have found same cut wound, lacerated wound on their
foreheads on frontal parietal bone. On the basis of the aforesaid
findings, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners under
Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them as mentioned above.
16. The learned appellate court also considered the materials
on record and recorded concurrent findings and confirmed the
Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the
learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred
by the petitioners.
17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that P.W.-6
is the informant of the case and he deposed that on 15.07.2004
at about 08.00 A.M., he was at his home and eight persons
including the petitioners came there armed with lathi and
sabbal (iron rod) and asked him to vacate the residence as
warrant was issued against them. Then, Jadu Das dragged him
out from his house and Satik Das assaulted him on his head by
means of sabbal and he sustained cut injury. Jadu Das sat over
his chest and started pressing his neck and then his wife Astami
Devi came there to save him. Then Ratan Das assaulted her on
her head by means of sabbal and she fell down and then, Maya
Devi, the wife of the informant's brother came there and the
accused persons assaulted her by fists and slaps.
18. This Court further finds that the informant (P.W.- 7) and
his wife Astami Devi (P.W.- 3) are the injured witnesses of the
case and both have fully supported the prosecution case and
P.Ws.-1, 2, 4 and 5 (Investigating Officer) have corroborated the
evidence of the informant and the injury reports proved by the
doctor have corroborated the injuries sustained by the
informant and his wife at the hands of the accused persons.
This Court finds that the accused persons including the
petitioners in furtherance of their common intention came to
the house of the informant armed with lathi and sabal and they
indiscriminately assaulted the informant and his wife.
19. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
recorded consistent and concurrent findings after properly
considering the evidences on record including the medical
evidences.
20. This Court is of the view that there is no scope of re-
appreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding for
interference in revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the
conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court
and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld.
21. So far the sentences of the petitioners are concerned,
considering the facts that the occurrence is of the year 2004 and
more than 17 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners
have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long period;
this is their first offence; they have also remained in judicial
custody for some period and the present age of the Petitioner
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are 66 years, 65 years and 55 years respectively,
this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be
served, if the sentences of the petitioners are modified to some
extent and the fine amounts are enhanced.
22. Accordingly, the sentences of the Petitioner No.1
(Sadanand Das) for each offence are modified and reduced to
the period already undergone by him in judicial custody with
total fine of Rs.20,000/-. So far as the sentences of the Petitioner
No.2 (Jadu Das) and Petitioner No.4 (Ratan Das) are concerned,
their sentences under Sections 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code are modified and reduced to Simple Imprisonment for 03
months with total fine of Rs.20,000/- each.
23. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentences
of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 for the offences under Sections 341
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences of the
Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 shall run concurrently and the period of
custody undergone by them in judicial custody shall be set off.
The fine amounts already deposited by the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2
and 4 in connection with the present case would be adjusted in
the aforesaid fine amount awarded by this Court.
24. The petitioners are directed to deposit the respective fine
amounts before the learned court below within a period of
three months from the date of communication of a copy of this
judgment to the learned court below and the amounts, so
deposited by the petitioners, shall be remitted to the victims of
the case namely, Bishwanath Das and Astami Devi in equal
proportion after due identification.
25. In case, the fine amounts are not deposited within the
stipulated time frame, the petitioners would serve the sentences
as imposed by the learned court below.
26. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and
modification in the sentences of the petitioners, this criminal
revision application is hereby disposed of.
27. Bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner No.2 and 4 are
cancelled.
28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
30. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
31. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the
learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
