Jharkhand High Court
Sufal Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 214 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.12.2004 and 23.12.2004, respectively passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V,
Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2002.)
---------
1.Sufal Manjhi
2.Bura Tudu ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ritesh Kr. Mahto, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
---------
05/Dated: 16th August, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
pursuant to the order of this court a report has been received
which transpires that the appellant No.1-Sufal Manjhi has died.
3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal stand dismissed
as abated against the appellant No.1-Sufal Manjhi.
4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.12.2004 and 23.12.2004,
respectively passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.
190 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted for the
offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 5 years and also pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Further, in default in payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three
months.
5. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.10.2001 the
informant had gone to Banagariya for removing the ailimonity of
leprosy and about 7.30. P.M., when he was coming from there,
the villagers met him. When he arrived Dadughutu Benagoriya
tola along with three others, he saw the Kishoan Mandal was the
floor where Sufal Manjhi and Buda Tudu were beating him
holding with a lathi and Kulhari. On asking the reason about
the occurrence the accused persons said that he was wandering
in necked condition therefore, they beaten him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
mental condition of the deceased was not well. He further
submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the
appellant. He lastly submits that the appellant has been
convicted under section 304 part II IPC is completely against the
settled law.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument
made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and
submits that the incident is of the year 2001 and the surviving
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 surviving appellant is middle
aged person and he never misused the privilege of bail and
further he is having no criminal antecedent and also remained
in custody for about 2 years and 6 months.
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 appellant.
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 appellant with regard to sentence awarded to
him; 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 since no motive or
element of planning has been proved in the instant case and
admittedly the appellant no.2 remained in custody for about 2
years and 6 months.
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 2001 and about 22 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 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.
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 no.2 shall be released for the period
already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-
as the offence was very grevious.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial
court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant no.2 is
sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment
of fine of Rs. Rs.25,000/-.
12. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid
fine of Rs.25,000/-,, within a period of 4 months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Dhanbad;
failing which he 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 appellant shall be discharged from the liability 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., Dhanbad and also to the surviving
appellant 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/
