Jharkhand High Court
Lilu Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1414 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both,
dated 15.07.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dumka in Sessions Case No. 383 of 2003.)
---------
Lilu Rai ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
---------
06/Dated: 16th June, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence both, dated 15.07.2004,
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions
Case No. 383 of 2003, whereby the appellant was convicted
for the offences punishable under sections 436 IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and further ordered
to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine
further undergo R.I. for further 6 months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.03.2003 at
around 9 A.M, appellant along with others were staging bricks
in her land. The informant forbidded them on which the
appellant along with the other accused persons tempted for
assault and abuse. Thereafter, she disclosed the fact to co-
villagers of the village. Thereafter, the appellant threatened
her that she will be driven out of the village. On the same date
at around 11 O'clock in the night, she was sleeping in
Baranda of her house and suddenly the house was set at fire
and she noticed that the bamboos of roof started breaking
down with the sound of Fat-fat. She came out of the house
and saw appellant standing beneath a Mango tree in front of
the house. The appellant fled away toward south of the village
after seeing her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. He further submits that the petitioner is old aged
person about 80 years and having no criminal antecedent of
the appellant.
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 aged about 80 years old
and he remained in custody for about some days and 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 his
life as he is now aged about 80 years, 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
remained in custody for some time.
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 also remained in jail for some time 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. 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 bond.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned trial Court and also to the appellant through the
officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
