Jharkhand High Court
Uday @ Rinku Baitha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
------
(Against the impugned judgement of conviction dated 24.01.2017 and order
of sentence dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No.266 of 2012, arising out of
Parnwa P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1107 of 2010,
Palamau at Daltonganj Jharkhand)
1. Uday @ Rinku Baitha
2. Suday @ Pintu Baitha .... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
--------
th
Judgment Dated: 19 February, 2024
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction
dated 24.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2017 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T.
Case No. 266 of 2012, whereby and where under the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/ 34 and 341/ 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section
307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine both have
been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Both
the appellants have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
of one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 /34 of the Indian
Penal Code and both have been further directed to pay compensation of
Rs.3,000/- each to the victims and in default of payment of compensation the
appellants have further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of
two months separately with a further direction that all the sentences will run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the written report of the
informant- Rajendra Baitha that on 18.06.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. when he
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
was returning to his home from the house of his brother Hari Baitha on the
way his nephews accused Uday @ Rinku Baitha and Suday @ Pintu Baitha
variously armed with Axe shopped him and started abusing him and when
the same was protested by the informant accused Pintu Baitha assaulted him
with Axe on his head due to which he received cut injury on his head and fell
down and on raising hulla by him his youngest son Sanjay Baitha came at
the place of occurrence from his house and he was also assaulted by both the
accused persons by lathi and axe and accordingly he also received head
injury. It is further alleged that the accused Rinku threatened to kill both of
them and he also said that they had assaulted with the intention to kill them.
It is further alleged that the mother of Rinku namely Parvati Devi and wife
of Rinku also threatened to kill both of them. It is further alleged that the
reason behind the occurrence is old land dispute.
4. The informant presented a written application to the officer-in-charge
of Parnwa P.S. on the same day with respect to the occurrence committed
with him and his son and accordingly, on the basis of the written application
Parnwa P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010 under Section 341, 323 , 324, 307, 504 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against altogether four
accused persons and after completion of investigation the Investigating
officer submitted charge-sheet No. 50/10 dated 28.07.2010 under Sections
323, 341, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
two accused/appellants only showing two ladies accused persons as
innocent and accordingly vide order dated 30.09.2010, the learned C.J.M
Palamau took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341 307,
504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on the record was
transferred to the Court of the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau,
who after securing the attendance of the accused persons, committed the
case record to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.04.2012 being
found the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was received to the file of
learned Sessions Judge, Palamau on 11.04.2012 and registered as S.T. No.
266 of 2012.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
5. On 10.06.2013 charges were framed and the same were read over and
explained to the above named both accused persons in Hindi for the offences
under Sections 341/34, 307/34, 504/34 & 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The learned Trial Court, after conducting the full-fledged trial passed
the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence which is under
challenge in this appeal.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants-
7. At the outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
submitted that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit of the
judgement of conviction and therefore, he is confining his arguments only on
the point of sentence.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted
that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties are Gotia
and there was a landed property dispute between both of them as evident
from the deposition of P.W.-1, vide para, 2, 3 & 4. Further, it has been
pointed out that the entire conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court is based upon the deposition of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 who are the
daughter-in-law and the son of the deceased-informant and no independent
witnesses namely, Hari Baitha-P.W.-3, Sudama Baitha-P.W.-4, Dashrath
Baitaha-P.W.-5 and Butti Mahto-P.W.-6 have supported the case of the
prosecution.
9. Further, it has also been pointed out that the I.O. of this case has not
been examined and therefore, these appellants being the accused have been
debarred from their right to cross-examination and draw the attention of the
I.O. with respect to their earlier statements / contradictions taken by the
defence during the course of examination of the witnesses particularly
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
10. Further, it has been pointed out that the place of occurrence has also
not been formally proved because of non-examination of the I.O. It has also
been pointed out that P.W.-7 i.e. the doctor who has medically examined the
informant Rajendra Baitha, since deceased, and not examined during the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
course of trial has found the nature of injury as grievous but there is no
specific statement as to out of three injuries which one was found to be
grievous and therefore, his statement is vague and not very clear.
11. Further, it has also been pointed out that this occurrence has taken
place as far back as about 15 years ago i.e. in the year 2010 and over a
period time both the appellants have reached to their middle age and there is
nothing on the record about their criminal history and further it is also
submitted that both the appellants have already remained in jail about more
than 4 months and no useful purpose would be served to send them again in
jail and further both these appellants are willing to pay the fine amount by
way of compensation in order to give it to the surviving victim i.e. P.W.-2-
Sanjay Baitha and therefore, in this view of submission, it is urged that let
the order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside by
modifying it to the effect that the appellants are sentenced to the
imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and further a
suitable amount of sentence of fine may be imposed by way of compensation
in order to give it to the victim P.W.-2 who is said to be the victim at the time
of occurrence.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State-
12. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted
that two persons have been alleged to been injured during the course of
assault between both the parties and one of the injured person is the
informant, Rajendra Baitha had died during the pendency of the criminal
proceeding and the learned Court below has convicted both the appellants
for the offence punishable under Sections 307/ 34 and 341/ 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and accordingly the sentence was imposed by the learned Court
below alongwith the compensation amount and therefore, there is no legal
point to interfere either in the impugned judgement of conviction or in the
order of sentence.
13. However, the learned A.P.P. did not deny this fact that both the parties
are Gotia and there is nothing on the record to show about their criminal
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
history and they have already remained in jail for about more than four
months and since the appellants do not want to argue this case on the point
of judgement of conviction and therefore, this Court may uphold the
judgement of conviction and after upholding the judgement of conviction a
suitable order on the point of sentence may be passed.
Appraisal & Findings
14. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including
the Lower Court Records.
15. It is found that both the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section conviction under Sections 307/34 and 341/ 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each for
the offence punishable under Section 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
in default of payment of fine the appellants have been further sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for two months and both the appellants were
further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month for the offence
under Section 341/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to
pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- each to the victim P.W.-2, Sanjay Baitha,
who is the legal heir of the informant and in default of payment of
compensation they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months separately.
16. Further, from the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, it
is found that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit of the
judgement of conviction and therefore, this Court upholds the judgement of
conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at
Daltonganj against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section
307/ 34 and 341/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with in S.T.
Case No. 266 of 2012.
17. Further, so far as sentence is concerned it is found that both the parties
are admittedly Gotia and there was a dispute with respect to the landed
property. Further, it is found that the occurrence is said to have been
taken place in the year 2010 i.e. about 14 years ago and thus both the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
appellants have been suffering the misery and hardship of the criminal
prosecution for a long period of time. Further, it is also found that the I.O. in
this case has not been examined and according to the version of the doctor
P.W.-7 although he has found the injuries grievous in nature but he has not
specified as to which of the three injuries are grievous in nature and thus it
has been pointed out that his opinion was vague and not tenable in the eyes
of law.
18. Further, it is also found that there is nothing on the record to show
about the criminal history of the appellants. Further, it is also found that both
the appellants have reached to their middle age. It has also been found that
both the appellants have remained in jail for about more than four months
including the pre-conviction period and the post-conviction period and in
this view of the matter it is found that no useful purpose would be served to
send them again in jail and the purpose of justice would be meted out if they
are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and
further a suitable sentence of fine may be imposed in order to give it to the
injured victim i.e. P.W.-2, Sanjay Baitha.
19. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 27.01.2017 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T.
Case No. 266 of 2012, passed against the appellants is set aside and the order
of sentence is modified to the extent that both the appellants are sentenced to
imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and further they are
sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- by each of the appellants by
way of compensation in order to give it to the victim P.W.-2, Sanjay Baitha
and in case of default of payment of fine each of the appellant is directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
20. Since both the appellants are on bail and therefore, four months' time
is allowed to the appellants to deposit the aforesaid fine and in default of
payment of fine the appellants are directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The appellants may deposit the fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the
victim P.W.-2, Sanjay Baitha by way of compensation.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2017
21. 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 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 the appellants serve the sentence of
imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine.
22. 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, they shall be released forthwith on
deposit of the said fine amount and they shall be released and / discharged
from the liabilities of their 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 the P.W.-2, i.e. victim Sanjay Baitha, and on his
appearance the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellants, shall be
disbursed to him. In case, if the said victim (P.W.-2) 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 (P.W.-2), 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), Palamau at Daltonganj, if required.
23. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, with modification in order of
sentence as above.
24. 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.)
