Jharkhand High Court
Carmila Ekka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1996 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated
14.062004, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, of Chotanagpur,
Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 417 of 2003)
Carmila Ekka ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP
--------
10/ 16.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 14.062004, passed by the
learned Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur Ranchi, in Sessions Trial
No. 417 of 2003, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to
undergo RI for 7 years and two years rigorous imprisonment under
Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, respectively and both
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.05.2003 the
daughter (now deceased) of the informant was killed by the husband and
the mother-in-law (present appellant) on account of non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the surviving
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that there is a
delay in lodging the FIR and no any independent witness has supported the
prosecution case.
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 appellant has 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 appellant is aged about 69 years and she remained in custody
for 675 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellant is having no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any
criminal antecedent of the appellant; 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 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.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for
the appellant with respect to sentence awarded to her since original
appellant No.-1 is no more and this appeal stood dismissed against him on
07.09.2012 itself, this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
present appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of her life
would not serve the ends of justice and admittedly the appellant remained
in custody for 675 days.
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 2003 and about 20 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and
the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and she has never
misused the privilege of bail and now she is not involved in any criminal
activities; thus, she has a chance to reform.
9. 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 shall be
released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.10,000/- looking to the nature of offence vis-à-vis her age.
10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period
already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Ranchi; failing which she 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 appellant shall be discharged from the liability of her bail
bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Ranchi and also to the appellant 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.)
Pramanik/
