Jharkhand High Court
Panu Marandi 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. 181 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated
31.01.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions
Case No. 122 of 2002)
1. Panu Marandi
2. Hanif Mian
3. Majid Mian
4. Abdul Satar Mian
5. Murli Mian
6. Jumrali Mian ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Nitya Pd. Choudhary, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP
--------
06/ 16.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. From perusal of service report it appears that appellant No.1-
Panu Marandi has died on 04.04.2013, as such this appeal is dismissed as
abated against appellant No.1.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 31.01.2005, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 122 of 2002,
whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
two years under Section 452 of the IPC, RI for six months for each of the
Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for six months
under Section 323 of the IPC and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.12.1993 at about 3
P.M., the Circle Inspector and Karmachari of Jamtara circle office had
come to village Mejhia for inspection of plot no. 6206 for which the
informant had filed an application for settlement. It has further stated that
in course of inspection the appellants assembled and raised objection for
settlement of land in favour of informant and for this quarrel took place
between them. It is alleged that at 3.30 P.M., when Circle inspector and
karamchari returned after inspection, the appellants armed with tangi and
lathi etc. entered in the house of informant and started abusing. It is further
alleged that they have also assaulted him, his son and daughter-in-law. It is
alleged that on alarm, villagers came and rescued them.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants
have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that no
independent witness has been examined. Even the I.O. has not been
examined by the prosecution which caused serious prejudiced to the
defence. Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the parties. He
contended that the trial court has not taken into consideration that both the
parties have settled their disputes outside the court and filed a compromise
petition in this regard before the trial court as Section 452 of the IPC is
non-compoundable.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 1993 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 are middle aged persons and appellant
Nos. 2, 4 & 6 remained in custody for some days and appellant Nos. 3 & 5
were all along in bail but never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellants are having no criminal antecedents.
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, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any
criminal antecedents of the appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified,
then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.
7. From impugned judgment it appears that the parties have filed
compromise petition before the learned trial court, however, since the
offence committed by the appellants was under 452 which was non-
compoundable as such learned trial court has not accepted the same. Thus,
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.
8. 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 since no
motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and
admittedly the appellant Nos. 2, 4 & 6 remained in custody for some days
and appellant Nos. 3 & 5 were all along in bail and never misused the
privilege of bail.
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 1993 and about 30 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and
the appellants were in jail for some 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 appellants shall be
released for the period already undergone.
11. 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.
12. With the aforesaid observations, discussions 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.
14. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the
court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
