Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Murari Thakur @ Murari ... 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. 178 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated
02.02.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions
Trial No. 81 of 2003)
Krishna Murari Thakur @ Murari Thakur ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
--------
05/ 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 02.02.2005, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan, in Sessions Trial No. 81 of
2003, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine
further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.03.2001 appellant
called the complainant at Sini Bus stand and forcibly kidnapped her and
also took away ornaments from her body and thereafter they demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- on telephone from her father for rescuing the complainant.
4. At the outset, Sri Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for
the appellant draws attention of this Court towards the I.A No. 3909 of
2022 which has been filed by mother of the complainant (deceased) and
submits that the informant complainant died in the year 2008 who was also
P.W 2 in this case and during course of time due to intervention of well-
wishers, family and friend a compromise has already been arrived at. In
para 8 of the I.A. the intervener mother categorically stated that due to
some misunderstanding the dispute arose, as such, looking to the averments
made in this I.A., the same may be allowed and on the same ground the
sentence may be modified accordingly.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the
intervener supports the aforesaid contention and submits that both the
parties are relatives and they do not want to proceed with the matter and
the informant side has no objection if the case will be disposed of without
they are further sentenced.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3909 of 2022 it
appears that the complainant of this case died way back in the year 2008
itself. Thereafter, the mother of the complainant who is intervener as well
as P.W.5 of the case has categorically stated in paragraph 8 that the case
was lodged on account of misunderstanding between the parties. It further
transpires that the occurrence of the case is 2001 and now both the parties
do not want to continue with their grievances.
7. Having regard to the facts of the case and averments made in
I.A. No. 3909 of 2022, the same has been accepted and this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is
sustained.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
11. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bond.
12. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to
the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
