Jharkhand High Court
Md. Neyazuddin @ Sonu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 445 of 2005
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2005 and order of
sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, FTC-2, Ranchi, corresponding to S.T. No.444 of
2002.)
-------
1. Md. Neyazuddin @ Sonu
2. Md. Hasib @ Dhiru
3. Md. Naushad
4. Md. Shagir ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Rohit Kumar, Amicus
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P
.........
05/23.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2005 and order of
sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, FTC-2, Ranchi, corresponding to S.T. No.444 of
2002, whereby the appellant Nos.1 & 2 have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 307/34 & 341 of the IPC and they were
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Five years with a fine of
Rs.1000/- each u/S 307/34 IPC and R.I. for one month with a fine
of Rs.500/- each u/S 341 IPC. However, appellant no.3 & 4 have
been convicted for the offence under Section 341/324 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month with a fine of
Rs.500/- each u/S 341 IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each under
Section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine further to
undergo S.I. for two months. However, both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3. Appellant No. 1, namely, Md. Neyazuddin @ Sonu died
during pendency of this appeal and this appeal has already been
dismissed as abated against him vide order dated 30.6.2022.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 05.05.2002 the
informant along with his friends have gone to the house of Sayad
Juber Sah to attend marriage. Due to delay in marriage, informant
along with his three friends rushed to Bano Manjil and saw that
the appellants were standing there. On seeing the informant,
appellants said that "Sale ko Jan Mar do" upon which appellants
started assaulting him due to which he received several injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated due to
previous enmity.
(ii) No independent witness has been examined.
(iii) Evidences are contradictory in nature.
(iv) No injury report has been produced in the Court.
After the aforesaid submission, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 2002 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 the surviving appellants are middle
aged persons and there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants
and the appellant nos.2, 3 & 4 also remained in custody for about
51 days.
6. 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 antecedents of the surviving
appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same
should be modified in lieu of fine.
7. 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 does not suffer from
any infirmity as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.
8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned
counsel for the appellants with respect to sentence awarded to
them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
surviving appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture
of their life would not serve the ends of justice.
9. 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 2002 and about 21 years have
passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally,
physically and economically and the appellants remained in
custody for about 51 days and they never misused the privilege of
bail.
10. 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 surviving appellants shall be released for the period already
undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- each.
It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall pay
the aforesaid fine of Rs.15,000/- each within a period of 4 months
from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Ranchi;
failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by
the learned trial court.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands
disposed of.
12. The surviving appellants shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, DLSA Ranchi, and the surviving appellants
through the O/I of the concerned Police Station and the LCR be
sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
