Jharkhand High Court
Tarapada Rakashit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2051 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 6th December, 2004 and order of
sentence dated 7th December, 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV (Fast Track Court), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 442 of 2001
---
Tarapada Rakashit ....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
--
16/10.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
6th December, 2004 and order of sentence dated 7th December, 2004 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV (Fast Track Court), Jamtara in
Sessions Case No. 442 of 2001, whereby the appellant was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C and was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 8 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default in payment of
fine, further ordered to undergo R.I for 6 months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.6.2001 the
informant went to circle his bari, where the accused person came and
abused him. On that, the informant prohibited him to abuse but they
threatened him as to why he is fencing his land. Thereafter, the
accused assaulted by Sabal on informant's head, causing injuries. The
cause of occurrence is said to be old enmity and proceeding under
Section 107 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions:
(i) Learned court below has failed to take into
consideration that there was bonafide land dispute between
the parties.
(iii) Learned counsel below has failed to take into
consideration that there was no intention of the accused
persons to cause murder of the injured.
(iv) Learned court below has failed to take into consideration
that the Investigation Officer has found nothing abnormal.
(v) Learned court below should have acquitted the appellant
in view of the fact that a villager from other villager has been
made a witness in the present case who has not even seen the
occurrence.
After the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that since no case is made out under Section 307 I.P.C; as such
some lessor punishment be awarded to him and since the appellant is at
present aged about 67 years; as such after sentencing the appellant for
lessor punishment the period of sentence may be modified for the
period undergone.
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.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on L.C.R, it appears that learned trial
court has failed to take into consideration that the accused inflicted
injury as stated and fled away and as such there was no intention of
causing murder of the informant. It has also failed to take into
consideration that the Investigating Officer has found nothing
abnormal. Learned trial court should have appreciated the fact that a
villager from other villager has been made a witness in the present case
who has not even seen the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt since the Investigating Officer
has not seized any blood stained cloth and Investigation Officer himself
has stated that injured did not produce any injury report issued by the
Doctor of Dhanbad. Learned court below has failed to take into
consideration that Exhibit-6 and Medical evidence does not show that
fracture was dangerous to life.
Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not gone to the place of
occurrence and he has recorded the statement of witnesses. It further
transpires that there was a single blow and admittedly after hitting the
injured the appellant fled away. As a matter of fact, there is no
deposition to the effect that the appellant was having an intention or
knowledge that by the act of the appellant the injured will die. It goes
without saying that the cause of occurrence is said to be old enmity and
proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C; thus, admitted land is not denied.
However, the presence of the appellant at the place of
occurrence and also the assault cannot be ruled out. At the same time,
since no intention or knowledge has been proved by the prosecution;
coupled with the fact that Investigating Officer has not come at the
place of occurrence; this Court is of the view that the appellant should
be acquitted from the charge under Section 307 I.P.C, but the
occurrence is proved by the prosecution; as such interest of justice
would be sufficed by convicting the appellant for a lessor punishment.
Thus; this Court holds that the appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 325 I.P.C. Consequently, the conviction under Section
307 I.P.C is converted into Section 325 IPC and for that the appellant is
sentenced for R.I. for a period of R.I for three years.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for
the appellant with regard to sentence awarded to him after converting
the conviction for Section 307 IPC by a lessor punishment; 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. Admittedly; the appellant is aged about 67 years and he
remained in custody for about 8 months.
8. 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 2001 and about 22 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellant in jail for a considerably period 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 the sentence imposed by this Court for Section
325 I.P.C is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone, but subject to payment of
fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
10. As a result, the appellant is acquitted from the charge under
Section 307 IPC and convicted under Section 325 IPC and the sentence
of the appellant, is, hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone, subject to payment of fine
of Rs. 5,000/-
11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of
Rs. 5,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Jamtara; failing which he shall
serve rest of the sentence as ordered by this 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, DLSA, Jamtara and also to the appellant through the
concerned police station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
