Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.853 of 2006
------
Sanjay Mandal, son of Ram Chandra Mandal,
Resident of Village- Kashitand, P.S. + District- Jamtara.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishta, A.P.P.
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
JUDGMENT
Dated:- 12.11.2024
By Court:-
Heard Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishta, learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
against the judgment/order of conviction and order of sentence
passed in Sessions Trial No. 29/2005 and 246/2001 by the Learned
5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Jamtara, whereby and where
under the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 307/324 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive
Substance Act and was directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years each under Section 3 of the
Explosive Substance Act and 307 I.P.C. and fine with default
stipulations. However, no separate sentence was awarded under
Section 324 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case initiated on the basis of a fardbeyan of
Gangu Mandal alleging inter alia that on 25.05.2000 at about 7:30
P.M. when informant was standing in front of his house with his
niece aged about 8 years, the informant heard the sound of
explosion due to which he suddenly ran away but his niece could
not run away and got injured by the splinters of the bomb. It is
further alleged by the informant that he has seen the appellant
running away from the place of occurrence. Informant along with
other tried to catch him but he fled away. Informant has further
stated that there is old enmity between them due to which the
appellant had thrown the bomb with intention to kill him.
4. On the basis of the farbeyan of the informant Jamtara P.S.
Case No. 82 of 2000 was instituted and after investigation charge-
sheet was submitted for offence under Section 307/324 of I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act.
5. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after
hearing the parties found the appellant guilty for the offences
under Sections 307/324 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the
Explosive Substance Act and sentenced him as aforesaid.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the
merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the
quantum of sentence imposed against the appellant and
substantial period of imprisonment for which is more than five
years, undergone by him during the trial of the case. It is
submitted that the allegation against the appellant was causing
simple injury through explosion of bomb. It is further submitted
that the appellant was held guilty only on the basis of suspicion
and there is no direct evidence against him. The appellant is a poor
person and has been sufficiently punished in this case. Therefore,
he may be released on sentence already undergone instead of
seven years imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial court.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that on merits,
this appeal is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in
sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate
order may be passed.
8. It appears that the date of the alleged occurrence was of the
year 2000 and almost more than 24 years has been passed from the
alleged occurrence. The appellant has sustained agony of trial for
the aforesaid period and also served more than five years in
custody.
9. Under the aforementioned circumstances and in the interest
of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by appellant
appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by
10. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned
judgment of the court below is upheld on merits but with
modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e.
appellant is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already
undergone by him. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits
with modification in the sentence.
11. Appellant is on bail, as such he shall be discharged from the
liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.
12. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent
to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.
13. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-12.11.2024
Amar/-N.A.F.R.
