Jharkhand High Court
2002) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 715 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2005 and the order of
sentence dated 23.06.2005, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2002/ 24 of
2002)
Jagmohan Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Majumdar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP
--------
05/ 23.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 21.06.2005 and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2005,
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2002/ 24 of 2002, whereby the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 4 years under Section 3 (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
also convicted and sentenced to RI for 4 years under Section 3 (xi) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and further convicted and sentenced
to RI for one year under Section 323 of the IPC and all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- to the victim
lady and in default thereof further to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.02.2000 at 8.00
A.M., when the informant along with her sons were going to take medicine
near the dispensary of P. Banerjee road, the appellant was coming there and
when the accused saw the informant he began to abuse her by repeating the
voice, "You are the people of „Nich Jati, Adibasi‟ and used to lodge case
and we will compel you to leave the Mihijam town." It is further alleged
that the appellant assaulted the informant by throwing her on the ground
and repeatedly abused her in filthy languages.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the impugned
order is based on only conjecture and surmises. There are serious
contradictions among the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The
appellant is a retired army man and he has purchased a land adjacent to the
plot of informant. The investigating officer was not the special officer
empowered by the State Government. The informant prior to this case has
also lodged another case against the appellant and his family member. He
submits that the informant is quarrelsome lady and her husband is an
Executive Magistrate and the informant has been harassing the appellant in
various ways since long. The appellant has already filed an informatory
petition for apprehension for lodging the fake case by the informant against
him.
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 the appellant 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 appellant is aged about 76 years and he remained in custody
for some days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellant is 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
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 since no
motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and
admittedly the appellant is now aged about 76 years and also remained in
custody for few 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 few 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.
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.20,000/-.
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.20,000/-.
11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs.20,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order, before the learned trial court, failing which he shall serve rest
of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. The learned trial court
in turn shall pay the aforesaid fine amount to the victim after notice and
proper verification.
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,
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/
