Tazuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2005 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1292 of 2003
                            ---------

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1989.)

Tazuddin Ansari ..... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

        For the Appellant        : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate
        For the State            : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP
                            ---------

  13/Dated: 9th May, 2023
              Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2003 passed by

the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at

Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1989, whereby the

appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under

sections 307 IPC and section 3/5 Explosive Substance Act

and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under section

307/34 IPC and 2 years R.I. for section 3/5 Explosive

Substance Act and both the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on

10.11.1988 at 4 p.m. two minor sons of informant aged about

5 years and 7 years were playing near chabutra of the house

of Nizamuddin. At that time Kali @ Nasimuddin, Jasimuddin,

Muslim and other were playing card on the chabutra. The

appellant brought bomb and gave it to Munna who throw the

bomb between both the children. As a result bomb exploded

and caused injury to both children. After that appellant and

Munna fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

F.I.R. was lodged after much delay from the date of

occurrence though the police station is situated within one

k.m. He further submits that the injured boy have specifically

stated that Munna had thrown bomb.

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 1988 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 60 years and he

remained in custody for about 210 days and never misused

the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no

criminal antecedents.

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; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same

should be modified in lieu of fine.

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 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 about 210

days.

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 1988 and about 35

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 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 be modified to the

extent that the appellant shall be released for the period

already undergone but subject to payment of fine of

Rs.40,000/-.

11. 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.40,000/-.

12. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs.40,000/-, within a period of 4 months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the

D.L.S.A., Palamau at Daltonganj; failing which he shall serve

rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.

13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal

stands disposed of.

14. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

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

court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Palamau at Daltonganj and also to

the appellant through the officer-in-charge of concerned police

station.

16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/