Mahendra Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2171 Jhar

                                   1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 914 of 2004
                                     ---------

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.06.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-Koderma corresponding to S.T. No.351 of 1999.)

-------

         Mahendra Sao                        .....      .... Appellant
                                     Versus
         The State of Jharkhand.             .....      .... Respondent
                                     With
                          Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 545 of 2006

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.04.2006, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-Koderma corresponding to S.T. No.288 of 2004.)

-------

         Radha Devi                          .....      .... Appellant
                                     Versus
         The State of Jharkhand.             .....      .... Respondent


         CORAM      : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                  -------
         For the Appellant           :Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Adv.
                                      Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathy, Adv.

For the Respondent-State :Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P : Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, Adv.

.........

09/16.06.2023 Since both the cases arising out of same P.S. case

No.57/98, hence both are heard together and disposed of by this

common judgment.

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 914 of 2004

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated

08.06.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, FTC-Koderma corresponding to S.T. No.351 of 1999,

whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under

Sections 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a

period of Seven years u/S 304-B of the IPC.

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 545 of 2006

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated

22.04.2006, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, FTC-Koderma corresponding to S.T. No.288 of 2004,

whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under

Sections 304-B & 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for a period of Seven years u/S 304-B of the IPC, however no

separate sentence was passed u/s 498A IPC

3. The brief fact of the case is that the marriage of the

informant daughter-Chinta Devi was solemnized with Mahendra

Sao (appellant in Cr. Appeal No.914/04) according to Hindu rites

and ritual. After marriage all the accused persons regularly

tortured the victim mentally and physically both for not given

dowry i.e. motor cycle at the time of marriage and accused

persons always given threatening if motor cycle is not brought

she would be killed. It is also alleged that there was an illicit

relationship between the husband-Mahendra Sao and his

sister-in-law (Gotni) Radha Devi and on 23.11.1998 when the

victim objected the behavior of her husband then all the

accused persons brutally assaulted her. After a day on

24.11.1998 the accused persons gave her poison with rice and

her daughter became unconscious and she died on way when

she was taking for treatment to Ranchi.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

made the following submissions:-

(i) Learned trial court while passing the sentence failed to

take into consideration the hard fact that the appellant-Mahendra

Sao was languishing in jail custody as under trial prisoner for

about five and half years.

(ii) Appellant-Radha Devi has been implicated in this case

merely on suspicion of alleged illicit relationship with the husband

of the deceased (Mahendra Sao) for which there is no cogent and

reliable evidence on record.

(iii) Judgment of the trial court is vitiated on account of

cryptic and perfunctory examination of the accused under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C because all the evidence and circumstances

adverse to the accused have not been put to him as a result of

which defence has been seriously prejudiced.

After the aforesaid submission, he further made an

alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1998 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 appellants are aged about 50 and

55 years respectively and there is no criminal antecedent of the

appellants save and except this case and appellant- Mahendra Sao

( husband) remained in custody for about Five and half years and

appellant- Radha Devi (Gotni) also remained in custody for a

period of 215 days.

5. 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 admits that as per

record there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants, as such,

if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in

lieu of fine.

6. 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.

7. 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

appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their

life would not serve the ends of justice.

8. 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 1998 and about 25 years

have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody

mentally, physically and economically and now they are not

involved in any criminal activities and appellant- Mahendra Sao (

husband) remained in custody for about Five and half years and

appellant- Radha Devi (Gotni) also remained in custody for a

period of 215 days; thus, they have a chance to reform.

9. 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 appellants shall be released for

the period already undergone.

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.

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal

stands disposed of.

11. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability

of their bail bonds.

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial

court and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned

forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-