Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Prasad Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1027 of 2004
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 22.04.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
FTC-I, Bermo at Tenughat, corresponding to S.T. No.256 of
2001.)
-------
1. Mahendra Prasad Barnwal
2. Shankar Prasad Barnwal
3. Vijay Kumar Barnwal
4. Ganesh Prasad Barnwal ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Rohit Kumar, Amicus
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P
.........
13/03.08.2023 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
22.04.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I,
Bermo at Tenughat, corresponding to S.T. No.256 of 2001,
whereby the appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 323 of the IPC and they were sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of three months. However, appellant
no.1-has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 & 324
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three years
u/S 324 IPC and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of
three months under Section 323 IPC. However, both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. Appellant No. 2, namely, Shankar Prasad Barnwal died
during pendency of this appeal and this appeal has already been
dismissed as abated against him vide order dated 17.11.2021.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 23.06.2001 the
goat of the informant entered the community hall and the
appellant-Ganesh Pd. Barnwal hit the goat which was objected by
informant and heated exchange had taken place. Thereafter on
24.06.2001, appellant- Mahendra Barnawal was urinating near
the informant's house and when informant's daughter objected
then appellant- Mahendra Pd. Barnwal hurled a stone on her due
to which she sustained injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The appellant have been falsely implicated due to
previous enmity.
(ii) Witnesses examined in this case are highly interested
witnesses.
(iii) Evidences are contradictory in nature.
After the aforesaid submission, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 2001 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 surviving appellants are aged and
middle aged persons and there is no criminal antecedent of the
appellants.
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, he fairly submits that as per
record, there is no any criminal antecedents of the surviving
appellants; 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 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.
8. 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
surviving appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture
of their life would not serve the ends of justice.
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 2001 and about 22 years have
passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally,
physically and economically and the surviving appellants are all
along on bail and they never misused the privilege of bail and now
the appellant no.1 is aged about 70 years.
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 No.1, namely, Mahendra Prasad Barnwal shall be
released for the period already undergone, however appellant
nos.3 & 4 namely, Vijay Kumar Barnwal & Ganesh Prasad
Barnwal respectively shall be released for the period already
undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
It is made clear that the appellant nos.3 & 4 namely,
Vijay Kumar Barnwal & Ganesh Prasad Barnwal shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- each within a period of 4 months
from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Bokaro;
failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by
the learned trial court.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands
disposed of.
12. The appellant nos.3 & 4 shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition and the appellant no.1 shall be discharged from the
liability of his bail bond.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for
quantifying the fees of the learned Amicus.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, DLSA Bokaro, 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/-
