Jharkhand High Court
Satayadeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1981 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-
IV, Palamau at Daltongaj, in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2001.)
---------
Satayadeo Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP
---------
05/Dated: 1st August, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Palamau at Daltongaj, in
Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2001, whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offences punishable under section 324 IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.08.2000 the
informant along with his father were ploughing the paddy field,
at that time appellant having farsa in his hand and other
accused persons having lathi in their hands came there and
assaulted the informant, due to which the informant sustained
injuries. The appellant assaulted the informant's father by
means of farsa on his head with an intention to kill him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
land dispute between the parties. He further submits that the
I.O. of this case has not been examined. He lastly submits that
there is a case and counter case between the parties.
5. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that
the incident is of the year 2000 and the appellant has suffered
the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may
kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already
undergone as appellant is aged about 84 years and he has
remained in custody for about 139 days and never misused the
privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal
antecedent and, so some leniency may be granted by this court.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error
in convicting the appellant. However, she fairly submits that as
per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellant;
as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be
modified in lieu of fine.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned judgment and the documents
available on LCR, and looking to the comprehensive facts and
circumstances of the case and the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses who have considerably proved the case of the
prosecution and the findings of the learned trial court; this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of
conviction and thus the same is sustained.
8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned
counsel for the appellant with regard to sentence awarded to
him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his
life would not serve the ends of justice and the appellant, who is
now aged about 84 years and also remained in custody for about
139 days.
9. Thus, on point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged
incident took place in the year 2000 and about 23 years have
passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in
jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the
privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal
activities; thus, he has a chance to reform.
10. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I
am of considered view that without interfering with the
judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the
extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already
undergone.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial
court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
stands disposed of.
13. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his
bail bond.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court and also to the appellant through the officer-in-charge of
concerned police station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
