Jharkhand High Court
Murli Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 241 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.01.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega, in
Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2002.)
---------
Murli Pradhan ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, Amicus.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
---------
08/Dated: 18th August, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 29.01.2005 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2002,
whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable
under section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
and he is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months for the
offence punishable under section 323 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.05.2002 victim
had gone to the house of Ram Singh for thrashing paddy. After
thrashing paddy, she entered into another room of the said
house to take water. Suddenly, appellant entered in the house
and caught her hand and breast and try to commit rape on her.
On hulla, her mother-in-law and her husband reached there
then she was left by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the informant
P.W.2, has changed her own version while deposing in court
regarding the manner of assault. He further submits that P.W.1
reached on hulla with his mother, but in cross examination his
mother told that at first, she went to the house of Ram Singh
after that her son has reached there. He lastly submits that
P.W.1 informant said that her mother-in-law and husband saw
the accused trying to commit rape, but P.W.3, the mother-in-law
of informant said that the occurrence was reported to her by her
daughter in law.
5. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that
the incident is of the year 2002 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 middle aged person and he has
remained in custody for about 22 days and never misused the
privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal
antecedent and, so some leniency may be granted by this court.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error
in convicting the appellant. However, she 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.
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 remained in custody for about 22
days.
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 2002 and about 21 years have
passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in
jail for a some days 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 be modified to the
extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already
undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-.
11. 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.25,000/-.
12. It is made clear that the appellants 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.,
Simdega; 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 bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Simdega and Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee for quantifying the fee of learned Amicus
and a copy of this order be also communicated to the appellant
through the concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
