Jharkhand High Court
Fudan Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1989 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated
23.11.2004, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 490 of 1992/ 99 of 2002)
1. Fudan Murmu
2. Ramey Murmu
3. Parma Murmu
4. Madan Murmu ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP
--------
05/ 18.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. From record it appears that pursuant to the order passed by
this Court notices were issued to the appellants intimating them about the
hearing of this case. A service report has been received indicating therein
that appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have died, whereas notices were validly served
upon appellant No. 2 and appellant No.4 through his son.
In view of the aforesaid report the instant appeal is dismissed
as abated as against appellant Nos. 1 and 3.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence both dated 23.11.2004, passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Case No.
490 of 1992/ 99 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each under Section
307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for one year under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.10.1988 at about 6
P.M., while the informant, his mother and his wife were sitting on their
door, suddenly the appellants armed with lathi, tangi etc. came there and
assaulted them brutally, from which they sustained injury. It is alleged that
there was enmity between the parties over a land dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned trial
court has failed to take into consideration the delay caused in lodging the
FIR and prosecution has failed to prove the actual place of occurrence. He
further submits that there are contradictory statements given by the
witnesses in their depositions. No independent witness has been examined.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 1988 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 they remained
in custody for some days and 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. 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; 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 and
admittedly the appellant No.2 remained in custody for 1 month 27 days &
appellant No.4 remained in custody for about 2 months, respectively.
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 1988 and about 35 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and
the appellants were also in jail for couple of months 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 be modified to the extent that the appellants shall be
released for the period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.15,000/- each as the nature of proved charge is grievous.
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 subject to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- each.
12. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs.15,000/- each, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Jamtara; failing which they 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 appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara and also to the appellant Nos 2 & 4 through
the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
