Jharkhand High Court
Balik Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1428 of 2004
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 10.08.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Jamtara, corresponding to S.C. No.38 of 2000/ 103 of
2001.)
-------
1. Balik Das
2. Gobind Das
3. Prasadi Das
4. Chander Das
5. Raghu Das ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P
.........
09/01.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 10.08.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Jamtara, corresponding to S.C. No.38 of 2000/ 103 of
2001, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 147, 323, 325 of the IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of One years u/S 147 IPC, R.I. for a
period of Six months under Section 323 of the IPC and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Five years with a fine of
Rs.500/- each u/S 325 IPC and in default of payment of fine
further to undergo S.I. for three months. However, all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 22.04.1999,
when the appellants were gathered for doing worship,
informant's mother came there to stop them, but the appellants
started assaulting informant's mother and when the informant
and his brother came there to rescue his mother they were also
assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) Witnesses are highly interested witnesses and close
relative of the informant.
(ii) Non-examination of the I.O has caused serious
prejudice to the case of the defence.
(iii) The evidences are contradictory in nature.
(iv) The injuries are superficial and simple in nature.
After the aforesaid submission, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1999 and
the appellants have 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 the appellants are middle aged
persons and they also remained in custody for about 2-3
months and there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants
save and except this case.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that the learned trial court has not committed any
error in convicting the appellants. However, he fairly submits
that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedents of the
appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same
should be modified in lieu of fine.
6. 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 trial court does not suffer
from any infirmity as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is
sustained.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned
counsel for the appellants with respect to sentence awarded to
them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their
life would not serve the ends of justice since admittedly the
appellants remained in custody for about 2-3 months.
8. 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 1999 and about 24 years
have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellants have
also remained in jail for about 2-3 months and they have never
misused the privilege of bail.
9. 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 appellants shall be released for
the period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.5,000/- each.
As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned
trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants
are sentenced for the period already undergone subject to
payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- each within a period of 4 months
from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A.,
Jamtara; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as
ordered by the learned trial court.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
stands disposed of.
11. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability
of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, DLSA Jamtara, and the appellants through the
O/I of the concerned Police Station and the LCR be sent back to
the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
