Jharkhand High Court
Barun Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1961 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 4.10.2004 and order of sentence
dated 5.10.2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.-I, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1994)
---
1. Barun Singh
2. Guddu Singh ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Azzemuddin, A.P.P
--
05/04.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
4.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 5.10.2004 passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-I, Gumla
in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1994, whereby the appellants were
convicted for the offence under Section 324/379/34 I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years under
Section 324 I.P.C; R.I for 2 years under Section 379 I.P.C and fine of
Rs. 500/- each. In default in payment of fine, further ordered to
undergo S.I for 2 months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was working
in the house of one Sinha Jee. On 13.10.1992 his friend Barun Singh
@ Tullu came to his house and asked him to go to village Raisa. On
14.10.1992, he and his friend proceeded towards village by Metadoor
along with sound box and reached to village. After taking liquor, one
of the accused called accused-appellant, Guddu Singh and from there
they went to fishing. After fishing, they reached near Lantana bushes,
where the accused-appellant Barun Singh started assaulting the
informant with Tangi, causing bleeding injuries on left side of head,
right nose bridge, forehead and left knee thereafter the accused-
appellants fled away from the place of occurrence.
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) All prosecution witnesses had given contradictory
statements to each other and they are not reliable and
trustworthy in the eye of law.
(iii) P.W.3 and P.W.6, in their deposition, have not stated
that the informant along with Juel Toppo (P.W.3) went by
Moped, likewise he has not been informed by Birasai
Gope(P.W.4) as Birsai Gope has not stated before the Court
that he disclosed the name of assailant.
(iv) Investigating Officer has not been examined and the
Doctor (P.W.7) found the injuries were simple.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 1992 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 remained in
custody for about 77 days (appellant no. 1) and 112 days (appellant no.
2) 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 their life would not serve the ends of
justice as admittedly the appellants remained in custody for about 77
days (appellant no. 1) and 112 days (appellant no. 2).
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 1992 and about 27 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellants were in jail for about 77 days (appellant no. 1) and
112 days (appellant no.2) 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. 20,000/- 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. 20,000/-
each before D.L.S.A, Gumla.
11. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs. 20,000/- each within a period of 4 months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Gumla; 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, Gumla 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
