Jharkhand High Court
Ropana Ahir vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 03.05.2006 and order of sentence
dated 05.05.2006 passed in Session Trial No.404 of 2000, G.R. Case No. 1699 of
1999 arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No. 34 of 1999 by the Court of Learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. Court No.X, Ranchi, Jharkhand)
1. Ropana Ahir,
2. Charku Ahir.
3. Jethu Ahir.
4. Bahuran Ahir, All son of Late Ghuran Ahir and all resident of village-
Dimba, P.S. Lapung, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Sonali Bhattacharjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT
24.02.2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
03.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2006 passed in Session
Trial No.404 of 2000, G.R. Case No. 1699 of 1999 arising out of Lapung
P.S. Case No. 34 of 1999 by the Court of Learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, F.T.C. Court No.-X, Ranchi, Jharkhand whereby and
where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307/34, 326/34 and 325/34 of IPC and have
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.4,000/- in
default of payment of fine further S.I. for two months each under
Sections 307/34 of the IPC, further more they were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of
fine, further S.I. for two months each under sections 326/34 of the IPC,
further more they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and a
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for one
month each under sections 325/34 of the IPC. However, all the sentences
were directed to be run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case had arisen on the basis of Fradbeyan (Ext-2)
of the informant Prem Lal Sahu (PW-3) S/O Baldeo Sahu resident of
village Dimba P.S. Lapung, Dist. Ranchi, which was recorded by A.S.I.
G.D Sharma (PW-6) of Lapung P.S. on 24.07.1999 at 6:00 A.M. at PHC
Lapung. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on
23.7.1999 at 7.30 PM, informant Prem Lal Sahu along with his elder
brother Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW.2) and one villager Gulla Sahu (PW1)
were returning from his old house to newly constructed house and when
reached near the Primary school they saw some persons had climbed
over his Jack fruit tree situated by the side of road. The informant asked
the person who had climbed over the Jackfruit tree as "who are the
thieves steeling the Jackfruit". Thereupon, the person who had climbed
upon the tree came down from the tree, at the same time and accused
Bahuran Ahir, Ropana Ahir, Charku Ahir and Jethu Ahir who had
concealed themselves behind the bushes also came there having TANGI
and DANDA in their hands and objected the informant saying 'SALA
TELI HOKAR CHOR KAHEGA‟. Immediately, thereafter accused
Bahuran Ahir who was armed with TANGI gave two to three TANGI
blows on the right shoulder of the informant and one TANGI blow on the
right side of the head of the informant and thereby caused injuries to
him. The informant's elder brother Lakhan Lal Sahu with a view to save
the informant went there then he was also assaulted with TANGI on his
head and caused injuries to him. On intervention by Gulla Sahu he was
also assaulted by accused Jairam Yadav, Bahuran Ahir, Charku Ahir,
Jethu Ahir and Ropana Ahir with LATHI on his head and also caused
serious injuries to him. On hulla the villagers came and saw the
occurrence and then the accused persons fled away. Thereafter the
informant's father and other persons of the Mohalla carried the informant
and injured to the Primary Health Centre. It was alleged that all the
accused had gone to steal away the Jack fruit from the informant‟s tree
when they were caught and out of annoyance, they assaulted with
LATHI and TANGI and caused injuries to the informant and others.
Later the doctor at Lapung P.H.C. referred the informant and other
injured to the R.M.C.H. Ranchi for treatment and investigation where
they were treated and examined by the Doctor.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Lapung P.S. case
No.34/994 dated 24.7.1999 under section 341, 323, 324/34 IPC was
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
registered and the formal F.I.R. was drawn. The police sprung into action
and after investigation submitted charge sheet and the basis of the same
learned C.J.M. Ranchi took cognizance of the offences on 22.01.2000
and also made over the file to the court of J.M. Ranchi for commitment.
The learned Judicial Magistrate after observing formalities of the
procedure committed the case to the court of session's on 6.7.2000.
Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi after receipt of the committed
record registered the same as S/T.No 404/2000. Learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi had framed charges against all the five accused
persons under sections 307/34, 324/34 on 21 February 2002. Later on,
charge was amended vide order dated 28.04.2006 under sections 326/34
and 325/34 of IPC. During the course of trial accused Jairam Ahir
absconded hence his trial was separated vide order dated 20.10.2005 and
the case was proceeded against remaining four accused persons.
4. The learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P.
for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted
that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and they want
to confine their arguments only on the point of sentence. It is submitted
on behalf of the appellants that almost all the appellants are old i.e.
appellant No.1, namely, Ropana Ahir is aged about 68 years old,
Appellant No.2 Charku Ahir, is aged about 47 years, appellant No.3
Jethu Ahir, is aged about 47 years and appellant No.4, Bahuran Ahir is
aged about 62 years.
It has further been submitted that Appellant No.1 Ropna Ahir
remained in custody for about 6 Months; Appellant No.2 Charku Ahir
remained in custody for about 6 Months 22 days; Appellant No.3 Jethu
Ahir remained in custody for about 6 Months 22 days & Appellant No.4
Bahuran Ahir remained in custody for about 9 Months 11 days. It has
further been pointed out that the learned trial Court after holding the
guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC convicted all the appellants
therein and sentenced them to undergo inter alia imprisonment for a
period of four years and imposed a sentence of fine total amounting to
Rs.7000/- to be paid by each of the appellants taking together under all
the three different heads. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
appellants that as per the prosecution case, three persons were injured
namely, Lakhan Lal Sahu, Prem Lal Sahu and Gulla Sahu and as per the
injury report and the depositions of the two doctors who have been
examined as PW-7 and PW-9 on behalf of the prosecution only one
injury inflicted upon the Prem Lal Sahu and Gullu Sahu was grievous in
nature and rest of the injuries either inflicted upon the injured Prem Lal
Sahu and Lakhan Lal Sahu were simple in nature and therefore, the
intention of the commission of the offence of „attempt to murder‟ is not
substantiated although the appellants have been convicted under Section
307 of the IPC.
7. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that
they are ready to pay a reasonable amount of fine to the injured persons
and therefore instead of awarding the further sentence of imprisonment,
they may be awarded sentence of fine in order to give it to the victims by
way of compensation and accordingly, it is urged on behalf of the
appellants that let the order of sentence be modified accordingly after
upholding the judgment of conviction, sentence of imprisonment may be
awarded for the period already undergone by them. Further, it has also
been pointed out that the quarrel and dispute arose between them
because of the trivial matter for plucking the Jack Fruit and therefore a
lenient view may be taken in modifying the order of sentence. Further, it
has also been pointed that another mitigating circumstances to modify
the order of sentence is that there is nothing on record to show about
their criminal history and the incident is of the year 1999 about 26 years
ago and accordingly it is urged on behalf of the appellants that a suitable
order may be passed on the point of order of sentence.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
8. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
and stated that the three persons were said to have been injured
including PW.-1 Gulla Sahu, PW-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and PW-3 Prem
Lal Sahu and PW-3 Prem Lal Sahu had sustained five injuries out of
which one of the injuries was grievous in nature whereas PW-2 has
sustained four injuries although all the injuries were simple in nature
and PW-1 Gulla Sahu had sustained only one injury which was
grievous in nature and therefore, the appellants do not deserve to have
any lenient view in modifying the order of sentence. Further it has been
pointed out that since the appellants do not want to argue this case on
merit and therefore, it is also submitted that after upholding the
conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections
307, 326 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, a suitable order on
the point of sentence may be passed taking into consideration that this
is an offence of the year 1999 and two of the appellants are above age
of 60 years and two of the appellants are around 50 years.
Appraisal & Findings
9. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the impugned judgment, depositions of all the witnesses and other
materials available on record.
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution has been able to examine
altogether 9 witnesses who are as under:
1. P.W.1-Gulla Sahu (Victim)
2. P.W.2-Lakhan Lal Sahu (Victim)
3. P.W.3-Prem Lal Sahu (Victim-cum-Informant)
4. P.W.4- Budhuwa Lohra (Hostile Witness)
5. P.W.5-Munshi Sahu (Hostile Witness)
6. P.W.6-Ganesh Dutt Sharma, (I.O.)
7. P.W.7-Doctor Chandra Bhushan Sahay
8. P.W.8-Baldeo Sahu (Circumstantial Witness)
9. P.W.9- Doctor Satish Kumar Lakra
Apart from the oral evidences the prosecution has proved some
documentary evidences also which are as under: -
Exhibit-1- Signature of Informant Prem Lal Sahu on Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1- Signature of Baldeo Sahu on the Fardbeyan
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
Exhibit -1/2- Signature of and Ram Lakhan Sahu on
the Fardbeyan
Exhibit-2- is the Fardbeyan of the case
Exhibit-3- formal FIR
Exhibit-4- to Exhibit 4/2 are the injury reports of the injured
persons granted by the Doctor C.B Sahay.
Exhibit-5 and Exhibit 5/2 are another injury reports of the injured
persons granted by the Doctor Satish Lakra.
No evidence either documentary or oral has been adduced by
defence.
11. Since, the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and
therefore, this Court does not go into the merit of the appeal,
accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 03.05.2006 passed in
Session Trial No.404 of 2000, G.R. Case No. 1699 of 1999 arising out of
Lapung P.S. Case No. 34 of 1999 by the Court of Learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. Court No.-X, Ranchi, against the
appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 325 and 326
read with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby upheld and confirmed.
12. So far as order of sentence dated 05.05.2005 is concerned, it is
found that the incident has taken place as far back as in the year 1999
when the quarrel between the parties arose in the wake of trivial matter
for plucking the Jack Fruit (Kathal). It is further found that altogether
three persons were injured namely, PW.-1 Gulla Sahu, PW-2, Lakhan
Lal Sahu and PW-3 Prem Lal Sahu but only one injury inflicted upon
two injured persons Prem Lal Sahu and Gullu Sahu was grievous in
nature and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Further it is
found that all the appellants have been suffering from the trauma and
misery of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time i.e. since last
26 years.
13. Further, there is nothing on record to show about their criminal
history, and Appellant No.1 Ropna Ahir remained in custody for about 6
Months; Appellant No.2 Charku Ahir remained in custody for about 6
Months 22 days; Appellant No.3 Jethu Ahir remained in custody for
about 6 Months 22 days & Appellant No.4 Bahuran Ahir remained in
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
custody for about 9 Months 11 days. Further, it is also found that the
appellants are ready to pay the fine by way of compensation to the
injured persons.
14. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid mitigating factors to
modify the order of sentence dated 05.05.2006, it is found just and fair
that the purpose of justice would be served in awarding the sentence of
fine by way of compensation instead of awarding the sentence of further
imprisonment to the appellants.
15. In the backdrop, this Court thinks that purpose of justice would be
served if the appellants are sentenced to the imprisonment for the period
already undergone by him and a sentence of fine is imposed upon each
of the appellants in order to give it to the each of the victims.
16. In this view of the matter, the order of sentence dated 05.05.2006
passed in Session Trial No.404 of 2000, G.R. Case No. 1699 of 1999
arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No. 34 of 1999 by the Court of Learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. Court No.-X, Ranchi is set
aside.
17. In result, the appellants are awarded the sentence of imprisonment
for the period already undergone by them. Further, they are sentenced to
pay a fine to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only)
collectively by all the four appellants by way of compensation under all
the three heads in order to give it to each of the victims namely P.W.-1
Gulla Sahu, P.W.-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and P.W.-3 Prem Lal Sahu
equally to a tune of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) each.
(Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) to each injured persons,
namely, P.W.-1 Gulla Sahu, P.W.-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and P.W.-3 Prem
Lal Sahu).
18. Since, the appellants are on bail therefore they are given six
months‟ time to deposit the said fine amount and in case of default of
fine, each of the appellant will undergo imprisonment for two years
under all the three 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 Gulla Sahu, P.W.-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and
P.W.-3 Prem Lal Sahu by way of compensation.
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
19 The learned Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps 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 each of
the appellant will serve the sentences as awarded in case of default of
payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of
law.
20. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment the
appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released and/ or
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.
21. The learned trial court is also directed that on deposit of the said
fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the victims namely
P.W.-1 Gulla Sahu, P.W.-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and P.W.-3 Prem Lal
Sahu and on their appearance the said fine amount, if so, deposited by
the appellants, shall be disbursed to them as aforesaid. In case, the said
victims P.W.-1 Gulla Sahu, P.W.-2, Lakhan Lal Sahu and P.W.-3 Prem
Lal Sahu are not traceable or not available or not found at the given
address, or do not appear before the learned trial Court, the same shall be
disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim
or victims or else as the case may be, 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 and the Secretary, D.L.S.A.,
Ranchi is directed to co-operate in this regard.
22. In result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the modification
in order of sentence as above.
23. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of the judgment be
also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter
and spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant B./S. Das
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2006
