Jharkhand High Court
Badri Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1732 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
14.09.2004/16.09.2004 respectively passed by the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 281 of
1993/81 of 2001.)
---------
1.Badri Pandit
2.Ram Prasad Pandit ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Verma, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP
---------
05/Dated: 22nd August, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated
14.09.2004/16.09.2004 respectively passed by the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.
281 of 1993/81 of 2001, whereby the appellants were
convicted for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years.
3. The prosecution case in short is that due to a land
dispute between informant and Shyam Lal Pandi. On
23.04.1992, Shyam Lal was preparing chappar and fixed a
pole on the said land. The villagers tried to intervene but he
did not pay any heed to them. Further the informant went to
inform the matter to village Chowkidar but he could not be
found. Thereafter, the appellants came armed with lathi,
bricks stone and set the house of informant on fire.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there
is a land dispute between the parties and previous enmity
between them. He further submits that the I.O. of this case
has not been examined in this case. He lastly submits that
there is general omnibus allegation against all the accused
persons and the case of the appellants are on the same
footing as that of other accused persons, who have been
acquitted from their charges.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument
made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and
submits that the incident is of the year 1992 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 both the appellants are
aged about 60 years and also remained in custody for about 3
months and they never misused the privilege of bail and
further there are having no criminal antecedent.
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 antecedent of the
appellants.
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 learned 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 with regard 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. They also
remained in custody for about 3 months.
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 1992 and about 31
years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust
anybody mentally, physically and economically 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 be modified to the
extent that the appellants no.1 and 2 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 appellants
no. 1 and 2 are sentenced for the period already undergone
subject to payment of fine of Rs. Rs.5,000/-each.
11. It is made clear that the surviving appellants 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., Jamtara; 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 appellants no. 1 and 2 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., Jamtara and also to the surviving
appellants through officer in charge of the concerned police
station.
15. The lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
