Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdev Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 417 of 2005
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 17.03.2005, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC-Jamtara corresponding to S.C. No.97 of 97/14 of
2004.)
-------
1. Sukhdev Mondal
2. Mansaram Mondal
3. Bhakti Mondal
4. Persuram Mondal
5. Bhado Mondal
6. Chetan Mondal .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P
.........
05/17.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 17.03.2005, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC-Jamtara corresponding to S.C. No.97 of 97/14 of
2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offences under Sections 147, 148 & 427 IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of one year each for each offence and
further the appellant-Monsaram Mondal was also convicted for
the offence u/S 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of two years. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.09.1995 when
the informant was engaged in construction of a room on
Jamabandi No.29, Plot No.57 and his brother Shachinandan
Mandal and nephew Pramod Kumar Mandal were watching the
same, the appellants came there armed with deadly weapon and
started abusing and scattering the materials kept on the
ground. On objection, the appellants started assaulting them
due to which they received injuries.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellant nos. 1 & 5- namely Sukhdeo Mondal
and Bhado Mondal have died during pendency of this appeal
and in support of his contention he has also filed an affidavit
along with death certificate.
In view of the aforesaid submission and affidavit, the
instant criminal appeal is hereby dismissed as abated against
appellant nos. 1 & 5- namely Sukhdeo Mondal and Bhado
Mondal respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated due to
previous enmity.
(ii) Witnesses examined in this case are highly
interested witnesses.
(iii) Evidences are contradictory in nature.
(iv) Non-examination of the informant and the I.O
seriously prejudiced the case of the appellants.
After the aforesaid submission, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1995 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 the surviving appellants are
aged and middle aged persons and appellant Nos.2 & 3 also
remained in custody for few days and appellant nos.4 & 6 were
all along in bail and there is no criminal antecedent of the
surviving appellants save and except this case.
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 admits that
as per record there is no criminal antecedent of the surviving
appellants, as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same
should be modified in lieu of fine.
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 trial court does not suffer
from any infirmity as such, 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
surviving appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this
juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice and
admittedly appellant Nos.2 & 3 also remained in custody for few
days and appellant nos.4 & 6 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 1995 and about 28 years
have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellants 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 surviving appellants shall be
released for the period already undergone.
As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned
trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the surviving
appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
stands disposed of.
12. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability
of their bail bonds.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court and the surviving appellants through O/I of the concerned
police station and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
