Jharkhand High Court
Yudhisthir Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1212 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated
28.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.1), Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 1998)
1. Yudhisthir Rajak
2. Sharban Modi
3. Suresh Rajak
4. Niranjan Rajak ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
--------
12/ 21.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence both dated 28.06.2004, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Bokaro, in
Sessions Trial No. 408 of 1998, whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section
325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also imprisonment of one year under
Section 323/34 of the IPC and both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.02.1998 at about
9.30 A.M., the appellants went for fishing in the pond of the informant and
when the informant opposed it then the appellants abused and assaulted the
informant with farsha due to which he sustained injury.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the evidences of
P.Ws. are contradictory to each other. He further submits that the Doctor
has not found any injury caused by sharp cut injury.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 1998 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 release the appellant No.4-Niranjan Rajak on
probation of offenders Act as he is a government teacher and not involved
in any criminal activities, save and except this and for rest of the appellants
i.e. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3, at least, modify the sentence for the period
already undergone as appellants are middle aged persons, and the appellant
Nos. 1, 2, 3 remained in custody for about 1 year and 5 months, 3 months
and 5 days, 3 months and 5 days respectively and never misused the
privilege of bail and further the appellants are having no criminal
antecedents.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for
the appellants that the appellant no. 4 may be given benefit of Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act as it appears that the appellant No.4 is a
government teacher and not a habitual offender and there is no criminal
antecedent whatsoever, except the present one.
Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the character of
the offender, I am of the considered opinion that sending the appellant no.4
back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose and it is expedient to
release him on probation.
As a result, the appellant No. 4 is directed to be released under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant no.4 shall file
two sureties to the tune of Rs.25,000/- coupled with personal bond to the
effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior
and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach
of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed
by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the appellant No.
4 within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
8. On point of sentence of appellant Nos. 1 to 3, looking to the
entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged
incident took place in the year 1998 and about 25 years have passed and
that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and
economically and the appellants were in jail for a considerable period i.e.
appellant Nos. 1, 2, & 3 remained in custody for about 1 year and 5
months, 3 months and 5 days & 3 months and 5 days, respectively 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.
9. 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 Nos. 1, 2
& 3 shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to
payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are sentenced
for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-
each.
11. It is made clear that the appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- each, within a period of 4 months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Bokaro; failing which
they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
13. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Bokaro and also to the appellants through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
