Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1461 of 2003
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2003 and order
of sentence dated 14.08.2003 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, FTC-II Chaibasa corresponding to S.T. No.193-A
of 2002.)
-------
Sukhdeo Pradhan ..... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P
.........
13/01.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2003 and order
of sentence dated 14.08.2003 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, FTC-II Chaibasa corresponding to S.T. No.193-
A of 2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of Seven years u/S 366A IPC with a
fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to
undergo S. I. for Six months and further to undergo R.I for Five
years under Section 363 IPC. Both the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 28.06.2002 at
about 11.30 a.m. while the informant was taking bath under
water tape, suddenly a Marshal vehicle appeared from east to
west in high speed. He heard the sound of cry of a girl which he
felt that of his own daughter. She went to school on 28.6.2002
along with his friends. Friends of his daughter came towards
him and said that in course of retruning home from the school a
Marshal jeep stop and boys boarded Pratima in Marshal jeep
forcibly and they went towards Mangoan via Devgaon.
Informant identified one of them whose name was Sukhdeo
Pradhan. Informant believed that Sukhdeo Pradhan forcibly
kidnapped his minor daughter with intention to marry her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the
following submissions:-
(i) For the same set of allegation seven accused persons
including appellant were charged under Section 363/366 and
34 IPC but except the appellant all are acquitted from the said
charges.
(ii) The ingredients of Section 366A IPC is wholly absent
and the court below completely misdirected himself in
convicting and passing sentence under Section 366A IPC and
that too without framing any charge against him under Section
366A IPC.
(iii) The learned trial court should have considered that
it has not been established that the victim girl was below 18
years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence.
(iv) According to the doctor she was below 18 years on
17.7.2002, however the doctor stated that the range of variation
is 1-3 years.
After the aforesaid submissions, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 2002 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, at least, modify the sentence for the period
already undergone as the appellant is aged about 45 years and
he also remained in custody for about 1 year and 8 months.
5. 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; 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 appellant with respect 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 would not serve the ends of justice since it has not been
conclusively established that the victim girl was below 18 years
of age on the date of the alleged occurrence and for the same set
of allegation six accused persons were acquitted except this
appellant and admittedly the appellant remained in custody for
about 1 year and 8 months.
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 2002 and about 21 years
have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in
jail for a considerable period and he have never misused the
privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal
activities; thus, he has 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 be modified
to the extent that the appellant shall be released for the period
already undergone but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.75,000/-.
As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned
trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment
of fine of Rs.75,000/-.
It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs.75,000/- within a period of 4 months from
the date of receipt of this order before the D.L.S.A., Chaibasa;
failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by
the learned trial court.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
stands disposed of.
11. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability
of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Chaibasa and also to the appellant
through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station and the
LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
