Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1207 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated
30.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court No.V), Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 178 of 2002)
1. Rameshwar Rawani
2. Govind Rawani
3. Paresh @ Paresh Kumar Rawani ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
--------
06/ 12.06.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 30.06.2004, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.V), Deoghar, in
Sessions Case No. 178 of 2002, whereby the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 were
convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and appellant No.3 was convicted
under Section 324 of the IPC. However, appellant No.3- Paresh @ Paresh
Kumar Rawani was sentenced to undergo RI for two years while petitioner
Nos. 1 & 2 were directed to be released upon furnishing the bond of
Rs.5,000/- each for keeping peace and good behavior for one year under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.03.2002 at 3.30
P.M., the appellants and his family members had assaulted the informant
and his wife; upon which the informant and his wife sustained injury. It is
alleged that there is a land dispute between the parties.
4. At the outset, Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that he does not want to press this case on behalf of the
appellant Nos. 1 & 2 since instead of sentencing them learned trial court
gave them benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and no adverse report has
been received during the period of probation.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the instant application is
dismissed as not pressed so far as appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned.
6. So far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, learned counsel fairly
submits that the total period of sentence was of two years and the appellant
no.3 was all along in bail & he has never misused the privilege of bail.
Learned counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the
year 2002 and the appellant No.3 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 No.3 is a middle aged person and never
misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant no.3 is having no
criminal antecedents.
7. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant no.3. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no
any criminal antecedents of the appellant no.3; as such, if the sentence is
modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.
8. 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.
9. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for
the appellant with respect to sentence awarded to appellant No.3; this Court
is of the view that at this stage remitting him 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.
10. 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
appellant no.3 has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not
involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform.
11. 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 no.3 shall
be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine
of Rs.5,000/-.
12. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court
is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant no.3 is sentenced for the
period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-.
13. It is made clear that the appellant no.3- Paresh @ Paresh
Kumar Rawani shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/-, within a period of
4 months from the date of receipt of copy 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.
14. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
15. The appellant no.3 shall be discharged from the liability of his
bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Deoghar and also to the appellant no.3 through the
officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
17. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
