Jharkhand High Court
Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 May, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 487 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 487 of 2011
------
(Against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 26.07.2011 in
S.T. No.131 of 2001 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Giridih, arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 109/2000, corresponding
to G.R. Case No.1316/2000, Giridih, Jharkhand)
1. Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav
2. Sukhdeo Yadav
3. Sahdeo Yadav
4. Kishun Yadav ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT Dated: 18th May, 2023
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence
dated 26.07.2011 passed in S.T. No.131 of 2001 by the Court of learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 109/2000,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1316/2000 whereby and where under appellants
Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun
Yadav have been convicted under section 323/34 and 341/34 of IPC and further
accused/appellants Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav and Kishun Yadav have also
been convicted under section 325 of IPC and accordingly accused/appellant Bhikhan
Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun Yadav were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence
punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all appellants have
further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under
Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the two convicts namely Kishun Yadav
and Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav have been further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence punishable under Section
325 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the written report of the informant
Bahadur Yadav (PW-6) addressed to the Officer-In-Charge that on 01.08.2000 at
2 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 487 of 2011
about 2:30 P.M. the accused persons; Bhikhan Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav, Kishun Yadav
and Sukhdeo Yadav were forcibly ploughing the field of the informant to which the
informant and his uncle Somar Yadav and his father Mahadeo Yadav objected. It is
further alleged that thereafter accused Kishun Yadav assaulted Somar Yadav by
Tangi on his head and said Kishun Yadav also assaulted Somar Yadav on his head
and leg as a result of which Somar Yadav received bleeding injury and Sahdeo Yadav
assaulted the informant Bahadur Yadav on his head and Sukhdeo Yadav assaulted
Somar Yadav by lathi, as a result of which he sustained injury on his index finger. It
is further alleged that accused Bhikhan Yadav gave lathi blow on the head of
Mahadeo Yadav and accused Sahdeo Yadav and Sukhdeo Yadav repeated lathi blow
upon the informant and others and Sahdeo Yadav forcibly took away Rs.300/- from
the pocket of the informant and accordingly the case was registered.
3. On the basis of the said written report (Ext.1) formal F.I.R. was drawn on
02.08.2000 vide Bagodar P.S. Case No.109/2000 under section 341, 323,324, 326,
307, 379 and 34 of IPC and investigation was taken up and after investigation, charge
sheet was submitted on 31.12.2000 vide charge-sheet No.209/2000 under section
341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 34 of IPC and cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge, Giridih had framed
charge on 16.08.2001 against all four accused/appellants under sections 307/34,
323/34, 341/34 and further against accused/appellants Kishun Yadav and Bhikhan
Yadav under section 325 of IPC also.
4. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have claimed
to be tried and their defence is total denial of the prosecution case and they have
taken plea of false implication.
5. The learned Court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the
impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge
in this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellants and learned counsel Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P appearing on
behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of appellants-
7. At the outset it is submitted on behalf of the learned defence counsel that the
appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore, he confines his
argument only on the point of sentence.
8. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pointed out
that it is an admitted case of landed property dispute between both the parties and
3 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 487 of 2011
there is case and counter-case between both of them and the members of both the
parties (the prosecution party and the appellants) have been injured in the alleged
incident. Further it has also been pointed out that this occurrence has taken place
more than 22 years ago and the appellants have been suffering the miseries and
hardships of the rigour of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time and there
is nothing on the record to indicate about their criminal history and over a period of
time they have reached to their middle age and therefore, in this view of the matter
a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State-
9. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that since the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit therefore,
let the judgment of conviction under which all the appellants Bhikhan Yadav @
Bhikhun Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun Yadav have been
convicted under section 323/34 and 341/34 of IPC and further accused/appellants
Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav and Kishun Yadav have also been convicted under
section 325 of the Indian Penal Code be confirmed and the order of sentence may be
modified under the facts and circumstance of this case, accordingly.
Appraisal & Findings
10. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower
Court Records.
11. It is found that all the appellants namely; Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav,
Sukhdeo Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun Yadav have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and under section 341 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and further the two
appellants namely; Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav and Kishun Yadav have also
been found guilty and convicted for the offence 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further accused/appellant Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav,
Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun Yadav were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and all appellants have further been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and the two convicts namely Kishun Yadav and Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav
have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each
for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that they do
not want to argue this case on merit and therefore the judgement of conviction dated
4 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 487 of 2011
26.07.2011 passed in S.T. No.131 of 2001 by the Court of learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Giridih, arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 109/2000,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1316/2000 passed against all the appellants are
hereby confirmed.
13. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that it is an admitted case of
the prosecution that there was a landed property dispute between both the parties and
they were claiming their respective right, title and possession over the land. It is also
an admitted case that there is case and counter-case between the parties and
appellants had also instituted a case vide G.R. No. 1317 of 2000, where the
informant's party were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341
and 324 of the Indian Penal Code although they were released under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. It is also found that there was free fight between the
parties and therefore, there had been injuries to both the parties including the
appellants and informant party.
14. Further there is nothing on the record to show about the criminal history of
the appellants. It is also found from the record that all the appellants namely;
Bhikhan Yadav @ Bhikhun Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Kishun
Yadav have already remained in jail and served the sentence for a substantive period
of time.
15. It is also found that there had been injuries on both the sides in the free fight
between them and there was case and counter case and the incident has taken place
about 22 years ago and therefore, they had been suffering the trauma, misery and
hardship for a long period of time and therefore, in view of such mitigating factors
it is found just and proper to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence to the
appellants by modifying the order of sentence of the learned Trial Court and the ends
of justice would be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the
period already undergone by them inasmuch as no useful purpose would be served
to send the appellants again in jail and further a reasonable amount of fine by way
of compensation may be imposed in order give it to the injured persons.
16. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 26.07.2011 passed in S.T. No.131 of
2001 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, arising out of
Bagodar P.S. Case No. 109/2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1316/2000 as
awarded against these appellants, is set aside and the sentence is altered by awarding
the sentence of imprisonment to the accused-appellants for the period already
undergone by them and further a sentence of fine is imposed to each of the appellant
to a sum of Rs.3,000/- in order to distribute a sum of Rs.1,000/- equally amongst the
5 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 487 of 2011
injured persons namely; P.W.-1, Somar Yadav, P.W.-5, Mahadeo Yadav and P.W.-6,
Bahadur Yadav.
17. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of four months is given
to the appellants to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine they are
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year to be served by each of the
appellants under all the heads jointly. The appellants may deposit the fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the victims
P.W.-1, Somar Yadav, P.W.-5, Mahadeo Yadav and P.W.-6, Bahadur Yadav, by way
of compensation.
18. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is
deposited by each of the appellant within the stipulated period of time and if the
same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as awarded
in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as per the
provisions of law to ensure that each of the appellants serves the sentence of
imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine.
19. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the
Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment the appellants deposit the fine
amount, the appellants shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount
and they shall be released and/ discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds
accordingly. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine
amount by the appellants, the notice shall be sent to P.W.-1, Somar Yadav, P.W.-5,
Mahadeo Yadav and P.W.-6, Bahadur Yadav, who are the victims and on their
appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed
to them as indicated above. In case, if the said victims are not traceable or not
available or not found at the given address, or does not appear before the court, the
same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said
victims, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this
regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of
District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Giridih, if required.
20. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed with modification in the order of sentence
as above.
21. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of the judgement be also
transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.
D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
