Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Lodwain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1837 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
29.09.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Dumka in
Sessions Case No. 187/2003/105/2004)
---
1. Lakhan Lodwain
2. Yoshmati Lodwain
3. Prabha Devi ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P
--
06/09.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, both dated 29.09.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 187/2003/105/2004,
whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 325/34 I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1
year and fine of Rs. 2,00/- each. In default in payment of fine, further
ordered to undergo S.I for 1 month.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28. 04.2002 when the
informant was digging earth to fix peg for tying cattle in the
courtyard of his house, the accused persons came there and protested
from digging the earth. When the informant did not stop to dig the
earth, then the accused persons took Farsha from his house and gave
a Farsha blow on his hand; accused Prabha Devi snatched Sabbal
from the hand of the informant and gave Sabbal blow on the right
hand of the informant and the accused, Yashmati Devi came with
Lathi and assaulted the informant by lathi. Thereafter the informant
fell down on the ground then accused persons fled away.
5. 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) The judgment and order passed by the learned court
below is based on no any independent eye witnesses or any
corroborative evidence.
(iii) Learned court below has failed to appreciate that the
witness has not proved the case of the prosecution.
(iv) Learned court below has failed to appreciate that not a
single independent witness has supported the prosecution
story and all the witnesses are interested witnesses.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid arguments made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 2002 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 appellant no. 1 is aged
about 54 years; appellant no. 2 is aged about 59 years and appellant
no.3 is aged about 73 years 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, she 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 appellant no. 1 is aged about 54 years;
appellant no. 2 is aged about 59 years and appellant no.3 is aged about
73 years .
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 2002 and about 21 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellant was in custody for few months and appellant nos. 2 &
3 were all along in bail 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. 5,000/- 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. 5,000/- each
before D.L.S.A, Dumka.
11. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs. 5,000/- each within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A. Dumka; 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 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, Dumka 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
