Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 702 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III,
Rajmahal, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 152 of 2000, Sessions
Trial No. 70 of 2002 in connection with Kotal Pokhar-Barharwa
P.S. Case No. 86 of 1999 , corresponding to G.R. Case No. 415 of
1999, Sahibganj, Jharkhand.)
1. Dinesh Kumar Rai
2. Khoka Rai ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate
Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
-------
Order No. 05: Dated: 02nd August, 2022
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge III, Rajmahal, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 152 of
2000, Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2002 in connection with Kotal Pokhar
P.S. Barharwa P.S. Case No. 86 of 1999 , corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 415 of 1999, Sahibganj, Jharkhand, whereby and where under
the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants for the
offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
further they were given benefit of section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958
2. Heard Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, learned counsel assisted by Ms.
Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for appellants and Mrs. Vandana
Bharati, learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
submitted that this appeal is directed against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of admonition dated 30.03.2005
whereby and where under the appellants were convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
further they were given benefit of section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, they were released after due
admonition without awarding sentence to the appellants.
4. It appears from the record that during the pendency of this
case, two of the appellants have died and the learned A.P.P. has
filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State stating therein that
two of the appellants namely the appellant no. 1. Narayan Chandra
Ray @ Narayan Chand Rai and appellant no. 2. Hari Shankar Rai @
Hari Rai have died and along with the counter affidavit their death
certificates have also been filed and from the perusal of the death
certificates it appears that the appellant no. 1. Narayan Chandra Rai
@ Narayan Chand Rai has expired on 28.07.2009 and appellant no. 2.
Hari Shankar Rai @ Haria Rai has expired on 22.04.2022 and,
therefore, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that let this appeal be
abated with respect to these two appellants, since, no near relative
has come forward to continue with this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submitted that since two of the appellants have died, let this appeal
be abated with respect to the two appellants as no close/near
relative or kith and kin has come forward to continue with this
appeal, accordingly, this appeal gets abated with respect to these
two appellants. The office is directed to delete their name form the
cause title of the memo of appeal.
6. The rest of the appellants are renumbered as Dinesh Kumar
Rai as appellant no. 1 and Khoka Rai as appellant no. 2.
7. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written report
before the O/C of Kotal Pokhar P.S. Barharwa P.S. given by the
informant Bhagwati Prasad Sah, who alleged that on 30.10.1999, at
about 12:00 A.M., he (the informant) along with Mansa Rajwar was
coming on Kotal Pokhar-Bijoypur Road and while they were crossing
Sihulidanga village, they saw that accused Narayan Chand Rai and
his three sons were harvesting the paddy crop grown by the
informant in his field. At that time, the accused Narayan Chand Rai
saw the informant and ordered his sons to confine the informant,
then the accused persons confined and started assaulting the
informant with lathi. During occurrence Hari Shankar Rai @ Hari
Rai gave a lathi blow on the knee of the informant so he fell down on
the road. Thereafter, the accused persons carried the informant to
the paddy field and again assaulted there. Accused Narayan Chand
Rai started pushing his throat by lathi with intention to kill him but
on hulla, witness Bijoy Sah, Chunni Lal Sah and Rahman Mian came
there. It has also been alleged that accused Narayan Rai snatched Rs.
350/- from his pocket. The occurrence was witnessed by so many
persons and out of them, one Ramjee shah rushed to Kotal Pokhar
P.S. and informed the police. On his information the Police came to
the place of occurrence. It has also been alleged that at the time of
confinement, wife of Narayan Chadra Rai was encouraging accused
persons for murder of the informant and accused Koka Rai had
taken part in wrongful confinement. The Police brought the
informant to Kotalpokhar where the informant gave the written
report. Further, allegation against the accused persons was that
paddy crops was stolen by accused persons from his field from
Jamabandi No.6 Dag No. 62, 65, 87, 88, 90 and 92 situated at mouza
Sihuli Danga within Kotalpokhar P.S. and the informant got
medically examined at Barharwa Government Hospital.
8. On the basis of the written report submitted at Kotal Pokhar
P.S. Barharwa P.S. (Notified P.S.) Case No. 86/99 dated 30.10.1999
U/Ss. 144/341/342/307/323 and 379 of the I.P.C. was registered
and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the
accused persons U/Ss. 147/347/342/323 and 307 of the I.P.C., but
no charge-sheet was submitted against the wife of accused Narayan
Chandra Rai. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken by
the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal and the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. Thereafter, the case was
transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Rajmahal and the charges were framed on 20.04.2002
u/Ss. 147, 323, 342 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the accused
appellants to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be
tried.
9. Learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
which is under challenge in this appeal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the learned trial court after holding the conviction of the appellants
for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC, awarded no sentence and
in spite of awarding the sentence they (the accused/appellants)
were released on due admonition by giving benefit of section 3 of
the Probation of Offenders Act and, therefore, it is submitted on
behalf of the appellant that they did not want to argue this case on
merit and accordingly, it is submitted on their behalf that let this
appeal be disposed accordingly.
11. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has submitted
that since the appellants did not want to argue this case on merit,
therefore, let the conviction of the appellants be sustained and in
absence of any sentence awarded by the learned court below this
appeal be disposed of accordingly.
12. Having taken consideration of the submissions of both the
parties, it is found that the appellants were found guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 323 of the IPC by the learned trial court and
after holding conviction u/s 323 of IPC, both the appellants were
released on due admonition after giving benefit of section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, they were not
sentenced under any kind of punishment.
13. Therefore, in the light of the submissions advanced on behalf
of the appellants, this appeal is disposed of upholding the
conviction of the appellants in view of the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant without interfering in the impugned
judgment of conviction and order passed by the learned trial court.
14. In the back drop, this appeal gets disposed of as above.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM/-
