Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 876 of 2004
---------
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.04.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum Special Judge, Gumla corresponding to G.R. No.815 of
1995.)
-------
1. Shankar Sahu
2. Suresh Sahu
3. Naresh Sahu
4. Arbind Sahu
5. Arjun Kumar Sahu
6. Sanjay Sahu
7. Ram Lal Sahu
8. Shyam Lal Sahu
9. Pradip Sahu ..... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Adv.
For the Respondent-State :Mr. B. Shastri , A.P.P
.........
08/05.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 29.04.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum Special Judge, Gumla corresponding to G.R.
No.815 of 1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted
for the offence under Sections 148, 447, 427, 323, 504 and
506 of the IPC & Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
One year for each offence u/S 148, 427, 323, 504 & 506 IPC
and further to undergo R.I for Three months under Section
447 IPC and S.I. for Six months under Section 3(i)(x) SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 12.11.1995
when the informant was sitting in the outside of the
courtyard in the meantime all the accused persons came
there armed with lathi, Baluwa etc. and started abusing and
assaulting him and damaged several household articles.
4. At the outset learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellant no.7-Ram Lal Sahu has died
during pendency of this appeal and a report has also been
kept on record at flag 'A' 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. 7-Ram Lal
Sahu.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made the
following submissions:-
(i) The appellants were falsely implicated in this case
due to land dispute and this fact has not been considered by
the learned trial court.
(ii) The court below has not considered properly the
material contradictions and also the statement of the
witnesses.
After the aforesaid contention he further made an
alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1995 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 surviving
appellants are aged and middle aged persons.
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 learned 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 case has been registered due to land dispute.
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 1995 and about 28
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 to be modified to the extent that the surviving
appellants shall be released for the period already undergone
but subject to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- each.
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
subject to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- each.
It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall
pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5000/- each within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of this order, before the
D.L.S.A., Gumla; failing which they 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 appellants shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
trial court, Secretary, DLSA Gumla and also to the surviving
appellants and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
