Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Turi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 192 of 2005
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated
16.12.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions
Case No. 01 of 2004)
---------
Manoj Turi ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ...... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2057 of 2004
---------
1.Mobarak Mian.
2.Eqbal Mian
3.Paigam Mian
4.Kuttu Mian ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2061 of 2004
---------
Quddus Mian ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Ms. J.S.Mazumdar, Adv
Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
---------
th
08/Dated: 16 August, 2023
Since all these appeals arise out of common judgment and same
P.S. case; as such, all are heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the order
of this court a report has been received which transpires that the sole-
appellant, namely, Quddus Mian in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2061 of 2004 has
died.
3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
2061 of 2004 stands dismissed as abated against the sole-appellant- Quddus
Mian.
4. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, both dated 16.12.2004, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2004; whereby
the appellant namely Manoj Turi and other five were convicted under
sections 147, 448, 323 and 149 IPC and another accused Mobarak Mian for
the offence under section 354 IPC. All the appellants were sentenced for
R.I. for 6 months for the offence under section 147, 323, 149 and 448 IPC
and further Mobarak Mian was directed to undergo R.I. for one year for the
offence under section 354 IPC and all the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
5. The prosecution case in brief is that her mother Basanti Devi is
working as midwife (Dagrin). On 24.05.2003 at about 6 P.M. in the evening
Yasin Mian came to the house of informant and asked the informant/s
mother to accompany him because his wife was suffering from abdominal
pain. However, the informant's mother had refused from going. On
28.05.2003 while the informant along with her mother were in their house,
the appellants along with one unknown person came there and abused the
mother of informant and they dragged the informant's mother in the angan
and had asked as to why Yasin Mian came to informant's house, whereupon
the informant's mother had replied that he had come for calling her because
his wife is suffering from abdominal pain. Thereafter, Mobarak Mian tried
to assault the informant's mother and tried to outrage her modesty, when
informant had tried to object Mobarak had assaulted her with fist.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that only interested
witnesses have been examined in this case and no independent witnesses
have been examined. She contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not named in the
F.I.R. as eye witnesses. She also submits that there is no allegation
regarding entry of the appellant in the house of the informant and abused
his sister and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against
the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.
8. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 2003 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 appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2057 of 2004 & Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 192 of 2005 are middle aged persons and they have never misused
the privilege of bail and further they are having no criminal antecedent and
appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 192 of 2005 remained in custody for about 41
days and appellant No.1 in Cr.Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 also remained
custody for about 130 days and appellant nos. 2,3 and 4 (in Cr. Appeal No.
2057 of 2004) remained in custody for 24 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
antecedent of the appellants.
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 learned 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 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2057 of 2004 & Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 192
of 2005 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 since no motive
or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and admittedly
the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 192 of 2005 remained in custody for about
41 days and in Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 appellant No.1 also remained
custody for about 130 days and appellant nos. 2,3 and 4 remained in
custody for 24 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 2003 and about 20 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 Cr.
Appeal No. 192 of 2005 as well as appellant nos. 2 to 4 (in Cr. Appeal No.
2057 of 2004 shall be released for the period already undergone, however,
appellant No.1- Mobarak Mian in Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 shall be
released for the period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.20,000/- looking to the nature of proved charge.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 192 of
2005 as well as appellant nos. 2 to 4 in Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 shall
be released for the period already undergone; however, appellant No.1-
Mobarak Mian in Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 shall be released for the
period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-.
12. It is made clear that the appellant No.1- Mobarak Mian (in Cr.
Appeal No. 2057 of 2004) shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/-,
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 appellant No.1- Mobarak Mian
shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
14. The appellants (except appellant no.1 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2057
of 2004 & Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 192 of 2005 shall be discharged from their
liabilities of their bail bonds. However, appellant No.1- Mobarak Mian in
Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 shall be discharged from their liabilities of his
bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara and also to appellant No.1- Mobarak Mian in
Cr. Appeal No. 2057 of 2004 through officer in charge of the concerned
police station.
16. The lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
