Jharkhand High Court
Nawal Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 478 of 2017
------
(Against the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence both
dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 794 of 2012 in connection
with G.R. Case No. 4934 of 2011, arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case
No. 249 of 2011)
Nawal Tirkey .... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
--------
th
Judgment Dated: 12 February, 2024
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the
learned S.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal is, directed against the judgement of conviction and order
of sentence both dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial Case No. 794 of 2012,
whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
alongwith a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, the
appellant has further been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six
months.
3. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbeyan of the informant
Turchu recorded by S.I. Raghubir Singh of Jagarnathpur P.S. on 06.10.2011
at 16:00 hours at Samar Hospital, Singhmore that on 06.10.2011 at about
10:00 A.M. the informant after taking dinner went to rest under the shade of
a jack fruit tree near his house. In the meantime, Nawal Tirkey having sword
in his hand came there and blew on the neck of the informant with intention
to kill him, as a result he sustained injury on his neck. Thereafter, his family
members and other villagers came there and saved his life. Thereafter they
brought him to Samar Hospital for treatment.
On the basis of the above fardbeyan Jagarnathpur P.S. case No. 249 of
2011 dated 06.10.2011 under sections 324 /307 of the I.P.C. was registered
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 478 of 2017
against Nawal Tirkey and after completion of investigation I.O. submitted
charge sheet against him under section 324/307 of the I.P.C and cognizance
was taken against the accused and case was committed to the court of
sessions for trial. Charge has been framed on 04.02.2013 under section 324
and 307 of IPC. The learned Court below after conducting the full-fledged
trial passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence,
which is under challenge.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
he does not want to argue this case on merit and therefore, he has confined
his argument only on the point of sentence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted
that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code and he has been acquitted for the offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code although charge had been framed
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also and he was further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of
Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and in default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo
six months simple imprisonment.
6. It has been submitted that during the course of trial the appellant has
remained in jail for about 5 months i.e. four months and 25 days. Further, it
has been submitted that it is a very old case and the incidence has taken
place in the year 2011 and the appellant has been suffering the rigour of
criminal case for a very long time i.e. for about more than twelve years and
therefore, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence. Further it
has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to pay the
fine amount by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-4.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State-
7. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted
that the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 478 of 2017
imprisonment for two years and there is no illegality in the impugned
judgement of conviction and order of sentence and there is no legal point of
interference in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence
and further submitted that this Criminal Appeal is fit to be dismissed being
devoid of merit.
8. Further, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State did not
controvert this fact that the appellant has no criminal history as per the
records of the case and since the appellant has confined his argument only on
the point of sentence, therefore, a suitable order on the point of sentence may
be passed.
Appraisal & Findings
9. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including
the Lower Court Records.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, it is found that the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been
acquitted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
although charge had been framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code also and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine the
appellant was directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment. It also
appears from the record that during the course of trial the appellant has
remained in jail for about 5 months i.e. four months and 25 days and it is a
very old case and the incidence has taken place in the year 2011 and the
appellant has been suffering the rigour of criminal case for a very long time
i.e. for about more than twelve years.
11. Since the appellant do not want to argue this case on the point of
conviction and has confined his argument only on the point of sentence
therefore, this Court upholds the judgement of conviction dated 27.02.2017
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi, in
Sessions Trial Case No. 794 of 2012 and accordingly the judgement of
conviction dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Court below for the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 478 of 2017
offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
upheld.
12. So far as sentence is concerned, it is found that there is nothing on the
record to show about the criminal history of the appellant. It is also found
from the record that the incidence has taken place as far back as in the year
2011 and over a period of time the appellant has reached to his middle age.
13. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, it is found that no
useful purpose would be served in sending him again to jail and the purpose
of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to fine. Further it has
been found that the I.O. of this case has not been examined and the doctor
i.e. P.W.-2 has been examined who has found the injury to be simple in
nature. It has also found that by this time the appellant has reached to his
middle age and therefore, the purpose of justice would be meted out if the
sentence is confined only to the sentence of fine.
14. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 27.02.2017 passed by the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial
Case No. 794 of 2012 is hereby set aside and the same is altered by imposing
sentence of imprisonment for a term of period already gone by him and
further the appellant is sentenced to fine to a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees
three thousand) to the appellant.
15. Since the appellant is on bail and therefore, six months' time is
allowed to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine and in default of
payment of fine the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year. The appellant may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat
of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the informant/victim P.W.-
4, Turchu Oraon by way of compensation.
16. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is
deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not
deposited by the appellant, then he 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 the appellant serves the sentence of
imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine.
17. The appellant may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through
the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment the appellant
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 478 of 2017
deposits the fine amount, he shall be released forthwith on deposit of the
said fine amount and he 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 appellant, the notice shall be sent to
the P.W.-4, i.e. the informant-victim Turchu Oraon, and on his appearance
the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to
him. In case, if the said victim (P.W.-4) is 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
victim/informant (P.W.-4), 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),
Ranchi, if required.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, as above.
19. Let the Lower Court Records and a copy of this judgement be also
transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.
D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
