Jharkhand High Court
Sahdeo Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 59 of 2005
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 18.12.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar, corresponding to S.C. No.139/2003.)
-------
1. Sahdeo Rai
2. Naresh Rai ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P
.........
05/30.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
18.12.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar, corresponding to S.C. No.139/2003, whereby the
appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections
307 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
Seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of
fine further to undergo R.I. for six months. However, appellant
no.2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 and 323
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Six months u/S 323
IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year
with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 354 IPC and in default of
payment of fine further to undergo R.I. for six months.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 08.10.2002 when
Kesiya Devi, sister of informant went to fetch water from well,
suddenly appellant- Naresh Rai due to previous enmity abused
her. In the meantime her brother (informant) reached there and
the appellants started assaulting him with deadly weapon due to
which he received several injuries.
4. From the Service Report it transpires that the
appellant no.1-Sahdeo Rai has died during pendency of this
appeal.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid fact this appeal is
hereby dismissed as abated against appellant No.-1 Sahdeo Rai.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated due to
previous enmity and there is a case and counter case.
(ii) No independent witness has been examined.
(iii) Evidences are contradictory in nature.
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 appellant is aged about
45 years and there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant and
the he also remained in custody for few 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
appellant; 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
him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
surviving appellant 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 surviving appellant remained
in custody for few days and he 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 appellant shall be released for the period already
undergone, but subject to payment of fine Rs.5,000/-.
It is made clear that the surviving appellant shall pay
the aforesaid fine amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A.,
Deoghar; failing which he 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 appellant shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, DLSA Deoghar, and to the surviving appellant
through the O/I of the concerned Police Station and the LCR be
sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
