Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 886 of 2004
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.04.2004/01.05.2004, respectively, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.-III, Gumla, in S.T. No. 53 of
2003)
---------
Manoram Barla ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ...... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1426 of 2004
---------
Rupesh Kumar Sahu ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1912 of 2004
---------
Anjlus Indwar ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ...... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 408 of 2005
---------
Anil Baraik ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. V.K.Vasistha, APP
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
---------
06/Dated: 8th August, 2023
Heard leaned counsel for the parties.
2. Since all these criminal appeals arise out of same judgment passed
by the trial court, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2004/01.05.2004, respectively,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court
No.-III, Gumla, in S.T. No. 53 of 2003, whereby the appellants were
convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in
default of payment further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.09.2002 at about 8 p.m.
the informant was teaching his daughter and wife was cooking food and the
outer door of the house was opened. Hearing the sound of knocking on the
door, the informant asked who they were, then 3 persons entered in his
veramdah holding bhujali, sword and iron rod. The miscreants caught hold
of him and pointed the bhujali in his neck and demanded money. Due to
fear the informant pointed the wooden box which was kept in another room,
the miscreant took out a sum of Rs. 31,000/- from the box and also took out
silver bangles and chain of his wife.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the informant has
said that he can recognize the miscreants, but interestingly he has not
attained the TIP rather his wife attained the TIP and secondly the TIP was
conducted twice which is not in accordance with law. This fact is
corroborated in para 31 of the deposition of P.W.5. He further submits that
no recovery has been made from either of the appellants though it has been
alleged that Rs. 200 has been seized but the same was not tallied. He further
submits that though one of the seizure list witnesses has supported the case
of seizure of Bhujali, but P.W.2 has not supported as such in view of these
infirmity, the impugned judgment requires interference.
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 (in all the cases) 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 appellants (in all the cases) are
middle aged persons and never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellants (in all the cases )are having no criminal antecedents. Further
appellant (in Cr. Appeal No. 886 of 2004) remained in custody for about
667 days and appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1426 of 2004 and 1912 of 2004
also remained in custody for 904 days and appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 408
of 2005 is also remained in custody for 948 days.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the
learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants.
However, she fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal
antecedents of the 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; 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 regard 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 and
admittedly the appellant (in Cr. Appeal No. 886 of 2004) remained in
custody for about 667 days and appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1426 of 2004
and 1912 of 2004 also remained in custody for 904 days and appellant in
Cr. Appeal No. 408 of 2005 is also remained in custody for 948 days.
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 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 a considerable period 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.
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 (in all
cases) shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to
payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellant in all cases is sentenced for
the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-
each.
12. It is made clear that the appellants (in all the cases) shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, respectively within a period of 4 months
from date of receipt of the order, before the D.L.S.A., Gumla; failing which
they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, all these criminal appeals stand disposed of.
14. The appellants (in all the cases) shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Gumla and also to the appellants (in all the cases)
through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
