Jharkhand High Court
Khudi Pahan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1333 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2004 and order of sentence,
dated 13.07.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast
Track Court No. VIIIth, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 2003/Trial No.
129 of 2003)
---
1. Khudi Pahan.
2. Dubio Pahan ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Prabeer Chaterjee, Spl. P.P
--
07/01.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
12.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2004 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. VIIIth Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No. 382 of 2003/Trial No. 129 of 2003, whereby the
appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
325,341,323/34 and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section
325 I.P.C; R.I for 6 months under Section 323 I.P.C and R.I for 1 month
under Section 341 I.P.C and fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 325 I.P.C
In default of payment of fine further undergo to S.I for 3 months. All the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7.9.2002 the informant had
grown paddy in his field and his elder brother was harvesting the paddy. The
accused-appellants came there armed with lathi, Danda and assaulted the
brother of informant, due to which the he fell on the field. Thereafter, the
informant brought his injured brother to his house.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants made the following
submissions:
(i) The impugned judgment and order of conviction is
illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and as such is
liable to be set aside.
(ii) Learned court below has fully based his judgment and
conviction solely on the statement of injured but he has also
not given any believable statements and his statement is not
believable at all in view of the evidence given by the Doctor.
(iii) The court below ought to have also considered the
statement of the informant, who has also not supported the
prosecution case at all.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 2002 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 appellant no. 1 is
aged about 43 years and appellant no. 2 is aged about 51 years and they
remained in custody for few days and never misused the privilege of
bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P 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 antecedent 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 prosecution witnesses, who have considerably
proved the case of the prosecution and the finding of the learned trial
court, 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 his life would not serve the ends of
justice as admittedly the appellants remained in custody for few days.
8. Thus, on the 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 2002 and about 21 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellants were in jail for few days and they have never
misused the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any
criminal activities; thus, they have a chance to reform.
9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of
the 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.
10. 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
before D.L.S.A, Ranchi.
11. 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 copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Ranchi; failing which they shall
serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
13. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds, subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial
court, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Ranchi and also to the appellants 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.)
jk
