Jharkhand High Court
Firoz Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2032 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2004 and the order of
sentence dated 10.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 420 of 2001)
Firoz Khan ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP
--------
05/ 22.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 09.12.2004 and the order of sentence dated 10.12.2004,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, (Fast Track Court),
Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 420 of 2001, whereby the appellant was
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
and six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 457 of the IPC and RI
for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 of the IPC and both
the sentences were directed to run concurrently and in default of payment
of fine additional sentence for three months rigorous imprisonment under
each of the sections and the fine amount shall be paid to the victim lady-
Munni Bibi.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.05.2000 at about
10.00 P.M. when the informant-victim was sleeping after taking dinner, the
appellant was uplifting her clothes from her body. She got up then the
accused caught hold of her and he tried to commit rape upon the victim. It
is alleged that she raised alarm then Firoz Khan took up an iron rod which
was kept there and assaulted on the leg of the informant due to which blood
started oozing. It is further alleged that when she raised alarm her cousin
devar Abdul Seikh came and tried to caught hold of the appellant but he
pushed him and fled away.
4. At the outset, Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that he confines his argument on the question of
sentence inasmuch as a compromise has already been arrived at between
the parties which has been recorded at para 15 and 16 of the impugned
judgment. However, the said compromise petition was not accepted by the
learned trial court for the reason that the concerned lady could not appear
before the court and the learned trial court was of the view that a
compromise was not voluntarily. As such, looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of offence at least
sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant. However, he 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.
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 appellant with respect 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 and
admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 13 days.
8. 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 2000 and about 23 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and
the appellant was in jail for 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 and further a compromise has already arrived at
between the parties during the trial.
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 shall be
released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.10,000/-.
10. 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.10,000/-.
11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs.10,000/-, 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 he 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 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara and also to the appellant 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/
