Jharkhand High Court
Hare Krishna Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1824 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.09.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in
Sessions Case No. 289 of 2003.)
---------
Hare Krishna Mandal ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, APP
---------
08/Dated: 21st July, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2004, passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 289 of
2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under section 436 IPC, but acquitted from charge
under section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for
three years under section 436 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R.I. for
one year.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.01.2003 the
informant along with her family members were sleeping and
at around 10.30 P.M. the informant in order to attend the call
of nature came out in her court yard which is surrounded and
the door was opened. When she attend the nature's call the
appellant waylaid the informant and caught hold with wrong
intention. The informant tried to save herself and raised hulla
then the appellant gave threatening that if she raises hulla he
will put fire on her house.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that P.W.1
has denied any relationship with the appellant whereas P.W.2
has admitted the relationship and P.W.7 has also filed a case
against him in which he has executed bond before the officer-
in-charge. He further submits that the appellant has been
acquitted from the charge under section 354 IPC whereas the
appellant on the same set of evidence has been convicted
under section 436 IPC although there is no seized material
and the evidence was from the witnesses who are hostile to
the appellant and as such the conviction under section 436
ICP is unsustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made
an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits
that the incident is of the year 2003 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 now 70 years old and
appellant was all along in bail and he has never misused the
privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no
criminal antecedent.
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
appellant.
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 learned 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 appellant with regard 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
their 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 who is now aged about 70 years,
and he was all along in bail and never misused the privileged
of bail.
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 2003 and about 20
years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust
anybody mentally, physically and economically and the
appellant was also in jail for a considerable period 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.
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 appellant shall be released for the period
already undergone.
11. Ordered accordingly.
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.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
Court and let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
