Jharkhand High Court
Kusum Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
06.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No. V),
Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2001)
---
1. Kusum Devi
2. Pramila Devi
3. Laljee Rawani ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
with
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1855 of 2004
---
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
18.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No. V),
Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 36 'A' of 2001)
1. Hari Rawani
2. Kamli Devi
3. Rina Devi ... Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.
---
07/19.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since, both these appeals arise out of same Deoghar P.S. Case No.
103 of 2000; and as such both are heard together and decided by this
common judgment.
3. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004 is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 06.10.2004 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No. V), Deoghar in Sessions Case
No. 36 of 2001, where appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani has been convicted
under Sections 147 and 325 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one
year under Section 147 I.P.C and R.I. for 5 years under Section 325 I.P.C.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently; whereas appellant no.
1, Kusum Devi and appellant no. 2, Pramila Devi were convicted under
Section 323 I.P.C and they were released upon executing bond under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1855 of 2004 is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 18.10.2004 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No. V), Deoghar in Sessions Case
No. 36 'A' of 2001, where appellant no. 2, Kamli Devi and appellant no. 3,
Rina Devi have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C and they
were released upon executing bond under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act.
5. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was working
as Gardener in Ravindra Biswas house, Bompass Town. On 9.4.2000, his
elder brother and younger brother told him that Kundan Babu and Thakur
ji have not got the land registered. Upon which, the informant said that he
will not fight with them and thus an altercation took place, whereby
accused, Hari Rawani hit him on the left portion of the chest by sabal
causing injury and Lalji Rawani assaulted the informant with wooden
portion of gainta on his right leg causing injury and pain.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of
2004 submits that appellant no. 1, Kusum Devi and appellant no. 2, Pramila
Devi were released upon executing bond under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act; as such nothing remains to be adjudicated so far as appellant
nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and he is pressing this appeal only on behalf of
appellant no. 3-Laljee Rawani.
He further submits that there was a case and counter case and
admitted land dispute and it has not been proved by the prosecution that
who were the aggressor and looking to the nature of offence and also the
date of incidence at least sentence imposed upon appellant no. 3, Laljee
Rawani may be modified.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 2000 and appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1827
of 2004) 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
the appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani is middle aged person and he never
misused the privilege of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1855 of
2004 submits that the appeal was dismissed as abated against the
appellant no.1-Hari Rawani vide order dated 21st July, 2023 as he had
died during pendency of this appeal; and so far as appellant no. 2, Kamli
Devi and appellant no. 3, Rina Devi are concerned, learned counsel submits
that since they were released upon executing bond under Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act; as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in
this case and he does not want to press this case on merit.
8. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant. As such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be
modified in lieu of fine.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the impugned judgment and the documents available on L.C.R,
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 respective Judgments of
conviction and thus the same are sustained.
10. Now coming to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant
with respect to sentence awarded to appellant no.3, Laljee Rawani in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004; this Court is of the view that at this stage
remitting the appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani to the rigors of
imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of
justice as admittedly the appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani was all along on
bail, but never misused the privilege of bail.
11. Thus, on the 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 2000 and about 22 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and
the appellant no. 3-Laljee Rawani, never misused the privilege of bail
and he is also not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a
chance to reform.
12. 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 no. 3,
Laljee Rawani in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004) shall be released for
the period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.
7,500/- looking to the nature of proved charge.
13. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani (Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004) is sentenced for the period already
undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs. 7,500/- before D.L.S.A,
Deoghar.
14. It is made clear that the appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 1827 of 2004 shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 7,500/-
within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order,
before D.L.S.A., Deoghar; failing which he shall serve rest of the
sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
15. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, both these criminal appeals stand disposed of.
16. The appellant no. 3, Laljee Rawani in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1827 of
2004 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to
fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A, Deoghar and also to the appellant no. 3, Laljee
Rawani in Cr. A (S.J) No. 1827 of 2004 through the officer-in-charge of
concerned police station.
18. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
