Jharkhand High Court
Vimal Kishore Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1807 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
07.10.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in
Sessions Case No. 434 of 1990)
---
Vimal Kishore Yadav ....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, AP.P.
---
06/04.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, both dated 07.10.2004 passed by learned 1 st Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 434 of 1990, whereby the
appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.
2000/-. In default in payment of fine, further ordered to undergo S.I for 2
months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.9.1989 the informant
went to the accused-appellant, who was Block Education Extension
Officer, Taljhari for preparing her service book. For that purpose, she had
given Rs. 100/-, but the accused was not happy. Again, she had given Rs.
100/- on 28.09.1989. On call, the informant entered into the office with
permission and sit there and the accused closed the door in order to
console, but thereafter he caught hold her hand and started vulgar acts and
the accused told her to sit in the office, but the informant went to her house
and later on she got the service book.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant confines his
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that at present the appellant
is aged about 80 years. He further submits that since he is not a habitual
offender and he is not involved in any criminal activities, save and expect
this case, as such, benefit of Probation of Offender Act may be granted to
the appellant.
5. Learned A.P.P though supported the conviction, however, does
not dispute the fact that as per record there is no criminal antecedent of
this appellant and he is aged about 80 years, which clearly transpires from
the impugned order itself.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding
of learned trial court; as such judgment passed by learned trial court is
hereby sustained.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act may be granted to the appellant, it appears that the appellant is not a
habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent, whatsoever, except
the present one.
8. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the age of
the offender, I am of the considered opinion that sending the appellant
back to prison at this stage of life will not serve any fruitful purpose and it
is expedient to release him on probation.
9. As a result, the appellant is directed to be released under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant shall file two
sureties to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- coupled with personal bond to the
effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behaviour
and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach
of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed
by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the appellant
within three months from the date of this judgment.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal
is disposed of.
11. Let the L.C.R and copy of the order be sent to court concerned
forthwith and also to the appellant through the Officer-in-charge of the
concerned police station.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
