Jharkhand High Court
Chaman Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1953 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
27.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.
9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1996)
---
Chaman Mahto ....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K.Samanto, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P
--
05/03.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, both dated 27.10.2004 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.
50 of 1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under
Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 3 years.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.08.1995 at 10:00
a.m. the son of the informant was cutting earth in the field with spade.
Suddenly, the accused-appellant came there armed with lathi, had given
a lathi blow on his head, as a result of which he sustained head injury
and fell down. The cause of occurrence was said to be the old enmity
between both the family members.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant 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 trial court has not considered this aspect of the
matter that the alleged occurrence took place all of a sudden
and the appellant was assaulted only once by lathi and the
evidence of the witness also shows that the lathi blow was not
repeated. As such, the accused had no intention to kill the
appellant and learned trial court while acquitting the
appellant from the charges under Section 307 IPC committed
an illegality by convicting the appellant under Section 325
I.P.C
(iii) The judgment of learned court below is not based on
correct appreciation of evidence and committed an illegality
by convicting the appellant.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 1995 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 the appellant is aged about
64 years and never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellant is having no criminal antecedent and also remained in custody
for about 41 days.
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
appellant. However, he 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.
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 appellant with respect 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 as admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 41
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 1995 and about 28 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellant was in jail for about 41 days 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.
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
appellant shall be released for the period already undergone but subject
to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
10. 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 subject to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-
before D.L.S.A, Giridih.
11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of
Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Giridih; failing which he 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 appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bond, 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, Giridih 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.)
jk
