Jharkhand High Court
Banamali Karmakar @ Banu @ Trilochan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.135 of 2012
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2008 and order of sentence dated
29.02.2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Seraikella, in
Sessions Trial No.80 of 2006.
Banamali Karmakar @ Banu @ Trilochan Lohar @ Banmali Lohar
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, SPP
.....
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction
dated 26.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 29.02.2008, passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No.80 of 2006, whereby the
sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 307, 385, 387/34 IPC and also
under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years with a
fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 307 IPC, RI for 2 years under Section 385/34 IPC,
RI for 4 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 387/34 IPC and RI for 3 years
with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default, to undergo
SI for 3 months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, without entering into the merit of the case,
confines his argument on the point of sentence imposed on the appellant.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is serious
infirmity in the sentence imposed both under Sections 385 & 387 IPC. Learned
counsel in support of his submission has relied upon Section 71 IPC which may be
quoted hereunder :-
71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences. - Where
anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an
offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of
such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
[ Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any
law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or
themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the
Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.]
Section 387 is putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to
commit extortion.-Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts
to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall be liable to fine. Section 385 is putting person in
fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.
6. Section 387 IPC is aggravated form of Section 385 IPC and, therefore, after the
sentence having been awarded under Section 387 IPC, the sentence under Section
385 was not proper.
7. With regard to sentence of 8 years under Section 307 IPC, it is submitted that
there is no previous conviction proved against the appellant and further, he has
already served more than 6 years in custody and, therefore, has been sufficiently
reformed.
8. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the
appellant does not deserve any clemency on the point of sentence.
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find force in
the argument advanced on behalf the appellant that Section 387 IPC is aggravated
form of Section 385 IPC and as such, sentence cannot be imposed in both the said
Sections.
Furthermore, considering the absence of any past conviction against the
appellant, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone shall meet ends of
justice.
Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with modification
in the sentence.
Further, the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned
at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 16th February, 2024.
sandeep/
