Jharkhand High Court
Kolha Sao @ Sukhlal Sao 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. 1221 of 2007
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2007
passed in Session Trial No.567 of 2005, G.R Case No. 2491 of 2005 arising out
of Ichak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2005 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C. Court No.III, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand)
Kolha Sao @ Sukhlal Sao, son of Late Chhedi Sao, resident of Village- Dumran,
P.S.-Ichak, District-Hazaribagh --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT
24.02.2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed in Session Trial No.567 of
2005, G.R Case No. 2491 of 2005 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 108
of 2005 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court
No.III, Hazaribagh, whereby and where under the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. The prosecution story arose out on the written application of the
Informant victim (P.W.-9) who was resident of village Rud P.S. Ichak
district Hazaribag. As per her written report, on 17.9.2005 at about 9.00
P.M. P.W.-9 along with one Urmila Devi (P.W.10) had gone to attend
nature's call just by the side of the house of one Vijay Sao in the field. In
the meantime, accused Kolha Sao @ Sukh Lal Sao of the same village
came there and caught hold her with an intention to commit rape upon
her. He put off his pant and climbed upon her. Her Sari was also
removed. She wanted to raise alarm but her mouth was pressed. In spite
of that she raised halla and on her sound her Nanad Urmila Devi came
running to her and thereafter, it was alleged that accused assaulted the
informant with lathi on her hand and thigh. On halla many people of the
village came there and they caught the accused and handed over him to
the police and her written report was filed on the same day at 11.30 P.M.
3. On the basis of written report, Ichak P.5.Case no. 108/05 was
registered on 17.9.2005 U/s 376/511 of I.P.C. and the informant was sent
to the hospital for her treatment. After completion of the investigation,
the I.O. of this case submitted the charge-sheet vide chargesheet No. 131
of 2005 u/s 376,511 and 323 of IPC to the court of C.J.M., Hazaribag
who took cognizance of offence vide its order dated 18.11.05 and
transferred the case to the court of J.M. Ist class, Hazaribag for
commitment, who vide its order dated 19.12.2005 committed the case to
the court of Sessions. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Hazaribag
has framed charge under section 376/511, 323 and 354 of IPC.
4. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed himself innocent
and to have been falsely implicated in this case for the reason that near
the place of occurrence there is Durga temple and the informant used to
make the place dirty which was objected by the accused and for that this
false case has been filed.
5. 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.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for
the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant:
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and he wants
to confine his arguments only on the point of sentence. Although it is
submitted on behalf of the appellant that Learned court below did not
consider that P.W.1 to PW-8 did not see the occurrence and the
deposition of P.W.-9 and P.W. -10 were full of contradiction. It has been
pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place as far back as on
17.09.2005 and although the charge was framed under section 376/511,
323 and 354 of IPC but he was convicted only under section 354 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo only R.I for 1 year and in this background, it
has been submitted by learned defence counsel that he is not arguing this
case on merit and confining his argument only on the point of sentence.
It has further been pointed out that the appellant was sentenced to the
imprisonment for a period of 1 year and he has already remained in jail
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1221 of 2007
for 04 Months 02 days which is evident from the custody report dated
05.12.2024 of the Central Jail, Hazaribag and in this view of matter, a
suitable order on the point of sentence be passed.
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 Appellant and
submitted that when the appellant is confining his argument on the point
of sentence only, the Court may pass appropriate order on the point of
sentence after upholding the judgement of conviction under section 354 of
IPC.
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 11 witnesses who are as under:
1. P.W.1-Karmi Devi (hearsay witness)
2. P.W.2-Daya Nand Pathak (hearsay witness)
3. P.W.3-Nuni Devi @ Munni Devi (hearsay witness)
4. P.W.4- Japeshwar Sao (hearsay witness)
5. P.W.5-Rukmini Devi (hearsay witness)
6. P.W.6-Tuleshwar Sao (hearsay witness)
7. P.W.7-Vijay Sao (hearsay witness)
8. P.W.8-Nirmal Sao (Husband of the informant)
9. P.W.9- informant/victim herself (Informant)
10. P.W.10-Urmila Devi (Nanad of the Informant)
11. P.W.11- Nardeo Toppo (I.O.)
Apart from the oral evidences the prosecution has proved some
documentary evidences also which are as under: -
Exhibit-1- Injury Report.
11. Since, the appellant does 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 11.09.2007 passed in
Session Trial No.567 of 2005, G.R Case No. 2491 of 2005 arising out of
Ichak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2005 by the Court of Learned Additional
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1221 of 2007
Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.III, Hazaribagh, for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is hereby upheld and
confirmed.
12. So far as sentence is concerned, it is found that the occurrence has
taken place as far back as in the year 2005, about more than 19 years ago
and the appellant is suffering with trauma and miseries of criminal
prosecution for a long period of time. Further it is also found that the
appellant has already served for about 4 months 02 days of the period of
sentence, as awarded by the learned trial court, i.e. 1 year as evident
from the custody report of the appellant dated 05.12.2024 sent by
Superintendent of Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan, Central Jail
Hazaribag. It has further been found that since the appellant does not
want to argue this case on merit and therefore this court finds that the
purpose of justice would be meted out if the order of sentence is altered
to the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by
him.
13. Accordingly, this court sets-aside the order of sentence dated
11.09.2007 passed in Session Trial No.567 of 2005, G.R Case No. 2491
of 2005 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2005 by the Court of
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.III, Hazaribagh and
alters the sentence of imprisonment by imposing the sentence of
imprisonment for the term of period already undergone by him.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with modification in order of
sentence as above.
15. Let the Trial 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
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1221 of 2007
