Jharkhand High Court
Dil Chand Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 649 of 2004
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.3.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Chatra corresponding to S.T. No.414 of 1999.)
-------
1. Dil Chand Prasad
2. Pramod Sao
3. Bechan Prasad ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumir Prasad, Adv.
:Mr. Sree Nivas Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mr. Ashok Kumar , A.P.P
.........
14/03.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.3.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Chatra corresponding to S.T. No.414 of 1999, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections
414 of the IPC & Sections 33 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of One year u/S 414 IPC
and further to undergo R.I for Six months each under Section
33(1)(a) & 42 of the I.F. Act.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.03.1994
Forest Official received a secret information that forest produce
are being illegally transported on a tractor and trailor, hence the
Forest Officials along with armed force and Magistrate
proceeded to catch the same and they seized the said tractor
and trailor which was loaded with eight quintals of bael fruits
(stone apple) along with one piece of Karam wood as well as
about 20 k.g of Katha.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellant no.1-Dil Chand Prasad has died
during pendency of this appeal and he produced death
certificate of the deceased appellant in support of his contention
and he submits that this appeal is being pressed for rest of the
appellants.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this appeal
stands dismissed as abated against appellant no.1-Dil Chand
Prasad.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The court below has not considered that the seizure
list has not been properly made nor any signature of the
accused was there, thus on this score alone, the appellants
cannot be convicted.
(ii) The court below has not considered that since there
was no report of any theft or they have not ascertained from
whose place the wood has been cut down.
(iii) Lastly he submits that the court below only on
presumption and assumption, convicted the appellants in a
routine manner.
After the aforesaid contention, he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1994 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 modify the sentence for the
period already undergone as the surviving appellants are aged
about 62 & 50 years respectively and they also remained in
custody for few 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 submits
that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedents 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
surviving appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this
juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice since
the seizure list has not been made property nor any signature of
the appellants is present there and admittedly the appellants
remained in custody for few days.
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 1994 and about 29 years
have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody
mentally, physically and economically and the appellants were
in jail for a considerable period and they have never misused
the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any
criminal activities; 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 be modified
to the extent that the surviving 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 surviving
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/-
