Jharkhand High Court
Sita Ram Nonia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1909 of 2004
Sita Ram Nonia ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha , Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP
-----
4/20.04.2022 This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and
order of sentence dated 19.10.2004 passed by the Court of 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, whereby the accused appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven months and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to
undergo S.I. for one month.
2. Briefly stating the prosecution story as unfolded by the informant
Ramcharn Nonia in his fardbayan dated 06.01.1994 at 14.30 hours at
referral hospital, Rajmahal is that on 06.01.1994 at about 11AM in the
noon, when he along with his younger son Satya Narayan Nonia was
doing repair work in his old house, meanwhile, his son Sita Ram Nonia
(appellant) holding the iron barchi in his hand, started abusing the
informant and asked him not to do the repair work, upon which, his
father (informant) stated that it was his house and he had given one
room to each of his son including appellant and Satya Narayan Nonia
and the informant further condemned his son (the appellant) that he had
damaged the house of his younger brother Satya Narayan Nonia and
also took away the door, whereupon, the son of the informant (appellant)
criticized his father (the informant) that he always supported to his
younger son and threatened him to kill and thereafter the appellant (his
son) assaulted upon the head of the informant by the said iron barchi, by
which, the blood started oozing and also he hit on his wrist of his left
hand, by which, the informant fell down. Thereafter his younger son
Satya Narayan Nonia interfered to rescue his father, then he was also
assaulted by iron barchi by the appellant, by which, his back was also
injured. It is further stated that after hearing the halla, co-villagers came
there along with his younger daughter-in-law and thereafter both the
informant and his younger son were taken to hospital, where the
treatment was going on and the statement of the informant was
recorded.
3. On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant Ram Charan Nonia, a
formal FIR was drawn and the case was registered and investigation of
the case commenced. After completion of the investigation, the charge-
sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
and the trial commenced and after concluding the trial, learned trial
court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
4. Heard Nand kishore Pd. Sinha, learned defence counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP appearing
on behalf of the State.
5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, learned defence counsel contended that in the present case, the
sole appellant Sita Ram Nonia has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to both his father
(informant) and his younger son (PW - 1 Satyan Narayan Nonia). It has
further been submitted that after holding the conviction under Section
323 of IPC, learned court below had sentenced the appellant to undergo
R.I. for seven months and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for one month. It has
also been ordered by the concerned court below that the period
undergone in the custody by the appellant during the pendency of the
appeal will be set-off.
6. Further learned defence counsel submitted that he does not want
to argue this case on merit in view of the fact that the sentence awarded
by the learned court below has already been served by the appellant
including the period of custody in case of default of payment of fine, in
view of the fact that the petitioner had remained in jail more than eight
months from 01.03.1994 to 24.11.1994. Learned defence counsel
submitted that let this case be disposed of in view of the fact that the
sentence awarded by the learned court below has already been served
including the period of sentence in case of default of payment of fine.
7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the state
fairly stated that in view such submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, let this appeal be disposed of as the learned
defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not want to
argue this appeal on merit and also in view of the period of custody
undergone by the appellant, it appears that he has already served the
sentence awarded by the learned court below including the default
sentence in payment of fine and therefore let this appeal be disposed of.
8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the
record of the case.
9. It is found that the learned court below after holding the trial,
found the sole appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section
323 of IPC and accordingly, he was convicted thereunder by the learned
court below. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence that the sole appellant was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for seven months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one months. It has been pointed out
by the learned defence counsel that the appellant has already remained
in jail from 01.03.1994 to 24.11.1994, i.e. more than eight months. It is also
evident from the lower court record that the sole appellant was arrested
on 01.03.1994 and he was granted bail by the Patna High Court on
24.11.1994 and therefore it is manifest that the appellant has already
remained in jail for eight months and as such period of sentence awarded
by the learned court below, has already been served by this appellant
including the period of sentence in default of payment of fine.
10. In this view of the matter that the appellant has already served the
sentence and after serving the sentence he has been set free. The said
appellant Sita Ram Nonia is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
11. In the backdrop, this appeal is dismissed.
12. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court below.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
