Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1731 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 7.9.2004 and order of sentence dated
9.9.2004 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No.-3), Godda in
Sessions Case No. 26 of 2003/08 of 2003)
---
Prakash Manjhi ....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
with
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1910 of 2004
---
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 7.9.2004 and order of sentence dated
9.9.2004 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No.-3), Godda in
Sessions Case No. 26 of 2003/08 of 2003)
Birendra Manjhi @ Biro Manjhi ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate
(Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1731 of 2004)
Mr. P.K.Verma, Advocate
(Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1910 of 2004)
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmim, A.P.P
(in both cases)
---
05/19.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since, both the appeals arise out of same impugned judgment and
as such both are heard together and decided by this common judgment.
3. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 7.9.2004 and order of sentence dated 9.9.2004 passed
by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No.-3), Godda in Sessions Case
No. 26 of 2003/08 of 2003), whereby the appellants were convicted for
the offence under Section 412 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.09.2001 while the
informant and his other family members were sleeping in their house
they could hear some sound and started to enquire about the sound and
in torch light they saw about 12 to 15 persons armed with various
weapons. For that, the informant and his mother started raising alarm,
further the culprits assaulted the family members of the informant and
also demanded money. Thereafter, they took away several household
articles including T.V, utensils, etc. Family members of the informant
had sustained several injuries on their person at the hands of the
culprits.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants made the following
submissions:
(i) The impugned judgment is erroneous, perverse, illegal
and wrong for not discussing the evidences available on
record, as such, is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The impugned judgment is passed against the facts,
materials and evidences available on record as no evidence
available on record has been able to prove the alleged seizure
of the stolen petromax from the conscious possession of the
appellant.
(iii) The non-examination of the alleged two seizure list
witnesses in fact has demolished the charges under Section
412 of I.P.C, thus conviction under Section 412 is wrong,
illegal and bad in law.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 2001 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 middle aged persons and they remained in custody for about 3
years and 28 days (Prakash Manjhi) and 3 years 4 months 25 days
(Birendra Manjhi @ Biro Manjhi) and never misused the privilege of
bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedents.
6. 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.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on
L.C.R, 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.
8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned
counsel for the respective appellants with respect 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 as admittedly the appellants
remained in custody for about 3 years and 28 days (Prakash Manjhi)
and 3 years 4 months 25 days (Birendra Manjhi @ Biro Manjhi).
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 2001 and about 22 years have passed and that
period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and
economically and the respective appellants were in jail for a
considerable period and they have never misused the privilege of bail
and now they are not involved in any criminal activities; thus, they
have a chance to reform.
10. 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 shall be released for the period already undergone.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial
court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced
for the period already undergone.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeals stand
disposed of.
13. The respective appellants shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bond.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court and also to the appellants 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.)
jk
