Jharkhand High Court
Jatru Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2049 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 4.11.2004 and order of sentence
dated 5.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T),
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 1997/T.R. No. 338 of 2003)
---
1. Jatru Oraon
2. Bandhan Oraon ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. J.P. Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
--
06/10.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
4.11.2004 and order of sentence dated 5.11.2004 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.
174 of 1997/T.R. No. 338 of 2003, whereby the appellants were
convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo S.I for 1 year under Section 323 I.P.C and S.I
for 1 month under Section 341 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In
default in payment of fine, further ordered to undergo S.I for 1 month
each.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.04.1995 the
informant along with others were returning home after watching the
wheat crop from the field, the accused persons along with five
unknown persons assaulted the informant by means of Farsa, Bhala
and Lathi, causing injuries on the head and shoulder of the informant.
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) Learned trial court ought to have held that in spite of the
specific claim of the informant that he received injuries by
means of Farsa and his treatment was done by the Doctor, but
neither the Doctor was examined nor injury report was
brought on record.
(iii) Learned trial court ought to have held that so far P.Ws. 6,
7 and 8 were declared hostile by the prosecution and P.Ws. 1,
4 and 5 were on inimical terms and were convicted in a case
lodged by appellant no. 1 by court below.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 1995 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 are middle
aged persons; were in custody for about a month and they 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 L.C.R
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 were in custody for about 3 weeks.
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 1995 and about 28 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellants were in custody for few months 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, Ranchi.
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, Ranchi; 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, Ranchi 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
