Jharkhand High Court
Ghuran Bhokta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2022
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2007 and order of
sentence dated 20.01.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 193 of 2004 in
connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 175 of 2004 in the district of Gumla, Jharkhand.)
Ghuran Bhokta ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl. P.P.
-------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
Order No. 04: Dated: 14th October, 2022
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 19.01.2007 and order of sentence dated 20.01.2007 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial
No. 193 of 2004 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004,
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 175 of 2004 in the district of Gumla,
Jharkhand whereby and where under the appellant was convicted
for the offence punishable u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the R.I.) for 3 ½
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and
in case of non-payment of fine he was further directed to undergo
simple imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the S.I.) for 4 (four)
months.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of
Budhmani Kumari (the victim-informant), aged about 16 years,
D/o. Aghnu Bhokta. The fardbeyan was recorded by B.P. Singh, S.I.
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
at the Gumla P.S. on 22.03.2004 at 17:00 o'clock at P.S. Gumla. It was
stated by the informant that she was a student of class VIII at Zila
Schhol, Gumla and used to go school every day from her house by a
cycle. Her co-villager Ghuran Bhokta, s/o Charu Bhokta, s/o village
Madhuban, who had just returned from Punjab, told in the village
that he would kidnap Budhmani Kumari (the victim). That day, i.e.,
on 22.03.2004 after school hours, at about 04:00 p.m., she was return-
ing to her home and as soon as she reached near AERODROME at
about 4:30 p.m., a white colour Maruti van stopped beside her and
one of the passengers named Ghuran Bhokta (the accused appellant)
and one other co-villager Ajit Sahu (the co-accused), son of Keshwar
Sahu suddenly came out of the Maruti van and caught hold her and
when she tried to raise alarm they threatened her to kill and the
Ghuran Bhokta pushed her Dupatta in her mouth and forcibly made
her seated into the van and began to take her away towards the col-
lege and when the van passed near the college hostel, she took out
her hand out of the van and began to waive for help. Thereafter,
some boys of the college saw this and started chasing the van with
another vehicle and stopped the said van and saved the victim. In
course of that, the boys of the college become irritated and commit-
ted marpit (quarrel with assault) with those two boys (the accused
persons). They caught them and along with her took them to the Po-
lice Station. The number of the Maruti Van was recorded as BR 13(P)
4290. It was claimed by the informant that Ghuran Bhokta (the ac-
cused appellant) tried to kidnap her with intention to perform mar-
riage with her.
On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a case was registered
against both the accused persons u/ss. 366-A/34 of the I.P.C. After
completion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted
against both the accused persons in the above Sections. Thereafter
the cognizance was taken against both the accused persons on
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
12.05.2004 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on
06.07.2004 for trial and disposal.
Thereafter, the charge was framed by the learned A.D.J.-I,
Gumla against the accused on 08.10.205 for the offence punishable
under Section 366-A/34 of the I.P.C. The charge was read over and
explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed for trial.
3. The learned trail court after conducting the full-fledged trail
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the appellant was in the jail custody since 22.03.2004 and has been
released on jail vide order of this Court dated 13.02.2007 and as such
he has remained in jail for about 2 years and 11 months and he was
enlarged on bail by the order of this Court dated 13.02.2007 and
therefore it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that let this ap-
pellant be disposed of by awarding sentence for the term of the pe-
riod already undergone by him inasmuch as the appellant does not
want argue this case on merit. It has been contended by the learned
defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that her argu-
ment is confined only to the point of sentence and she has submitted
that the appellant was a young boy of 20 years at the time of the oc-
currence and therefore he was not so matured enough to under-
stand the consequences of committing the offence for which he had
been convicted. Further, it is also pointed out that there is no crimi-
nal history against the appellant and view of these mitigating fac-
tors, let this appeal be disposed of by hearing on the point of sen-
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
tence and urged to dispose of this appeal by imposing the sentence
of imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by him.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the
State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidences available on record and convicted the appellant for
the offence punishable u/s 363 of the I.P.C. and thereafter he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3.5 years and the
learned Addl.P.P. did not deny the fact that the appellant has re-
mained in jail for about 2 years and 11 months and he was in jail
from the date of occurrence itself as he was caught on the spot and
was released on bail by the order of this Court when the appeal was
preferred before this court by the order dated 13.02.2007 and there-
fore, it is contended that let this appeal be dismissed.
Appraisal & Findings
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the
record of the case including the Lower Court Records.
8. It is found that after conducting the full-fledged trial and ap-
preciating the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties the
learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence by which the appellant was convicted for the of-
fence punishable u/s. 363 of the I.P.C. for kidnapping from the law-
ful guardian and therefore the appellant was sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 3.5 years u/s. 363 of the I.P.C. and fine was also imposed to
pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in case of
default of fine he was further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period
of 4 months. Learned counsel for the appellant confined her argu-
ment only on the point of sentence and therefore this Court does not
enter into the merit of this appeal and as such this appeal gets dis-
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
missed on the point of conviction and accordingly this appeal is
heard on the point of sentence only.
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant on the point of sen-
tence that sole appellant Ghuran Bhokta was a young boy of about
20 years of age at the time of the occurrence and he was not matured
enough to understand the consequences of his act and therefore due
to bonafide ignorance, the offence was committed by him under
which he was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 363 of the
I.P.C. Further, it is found from the record that there is no criminal
history against the appellant. It is also found that the petitioner has
remained in jail custody from 22.03.2004 (the date of lodging of the
F.I.R) to 13.02.2007 (the date when he was directed to be released on
bail by this Court) and as such he has remained in jail custody for a
long period i.e. about 2 years and 11 months and as such almost he
has served the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. It is
also manifest from the record that the appellant has been suffering
from the trauma, miseries and hardships of the criminal prosecution
for a long period of time in view of the fact that the alleged occur-
rence had taken place as far back as in the year 2004. In view of
these mitigating factors under the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served to
send the appellant again in jail and justice would be meted out if the
appellant is sentenced for a term of period already undergone by
him.
10. In the backdrop, upholding the impugned judgment of convic-
tion dated 19.01.2007, the impugned order of sentence dated
20.01.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 193 of 2004 arising out of Gumla P.S.
Case No. 52 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 175 of 2004 in
the district of Gumla, Jharkhand against the sole appellant is set
aside and this Court alters the said order of sentence by imposing
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2007
the sentence of imprisonment for a term of the period already un-
dergone by him.
11. This appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sen-
tence as above.
12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabili-
ties of the bail bonds.
13. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court be-
low along with Lower Court Records.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 14.10.2022/NAFR
MM/-
