Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sunder Choudhary @ Shyam Choudhry ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006
passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002
arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 by the court of Sri Binay
Kumar Sahay, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal)
1.Shyam Sunder Choudhary @ Shyam Choudhry Son of Late Satyanarayan
Choudhary
2.Rajesh Kumar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhry Son of Late Mohan Choudhary
All resident of Mian Road, Barharwa P.O. + P.S. Barharwa Dist- Sahebganj
--- --- Appellants (In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006)
Dilip Kumar Choudhary @ Dilip Choudhary Son of Late Laxmi Narayan
Choduhary resident of P.S. and P.O. Barharwa Dist.- Sahebganj.
--- --- Appellant (In Cr. Appeal No. 1241 of 2006)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
For the Appellants : Mr. Madhav Prasad, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
JUDGMENT
28.02.2025 Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 232
of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002 arising out of Barharwa P.S.
Case No. 111 of 1998 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-
I, Rajmahal whereby and where under the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342/34,323/34,
325/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 307/34 IPC; R.I. for 2 years
u/s 325/34 IPC; R.I. for 6 months u/s 342/34 IPC and R.I. for 6 months
u/s 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further
directed to undergo R.I. 3 months. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the
informant (P.W.8)- Seema Choudhary, whose statement was recorded by
the A.S.I. Kapil Deo Prasad of Raj Mahal P.S. on 05.10.1998 at 9.30 hrs.
at Referral Hospital, Rajmahal, which is as under:
On 03.10.1998 at about 5.00 P.M. four accused persons namely
Dilip Kumar Chowdhary, Rajesh Kumar Chowdhary, Shyam Sunder
Chowdhary and Laxmi Narayan Chowdhary (died during course of trial)
entered into the room of the informant and asked her to bring
Rs.10,000/- from her uncle Prabhu Dayal, failing which, she would be
killed. When she answered that she was not in a position to bring money
the accused persons started abusing her. The accused Rajesh Chowdhary
happens to be her brother-in-law (Dewar) and Shyam Chowdhary is
brother-in-law (cousin Bhaisur) and Dilip Chowdhary happens to be her
uncle-in-law. The informant objected to the abusing. Thereafter the
accused Dilip Chowdhary @Dipu Chowdhary assaulted with iron rod
upon her head with intention to kill her. He also assaulted her on her
arm. Consequently, she sustained injury and fell down. Thereafter the
other accused persons assaulted her with legs and fists and they also took
away a gold chain weighing two tolas. Thereafter the accused persons
went away and bolted the door from outside and they told "let her be
dead". On 4.10.98 at about 9.00 P.M. her brother Kishor Jain came from
Rajmahal and opened the door and took her to Rajmahal for treatment.
Rajmahal police recorded her fardbeyan.
3. On the basis of her fardbeyan FIR has been lodged on 05.10.1998
under sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 448, 379 IPC. The police took up
investigation and submitted charge sheet u/s 341, 342, 323, 324, 307,
379 and 448 I.P.C. against the appellants. The learned A.C.J.M.,
Rajmahal took cognizance of the offences accordingly and lastly the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge Fast Track Court, Rajmahal had framed charge under section
342/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of IPC on 05 July 2002 against the
accused appellants.
4. The defence in short is total denial of occurrence and false
implication out of previous enmity and litigation
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
5. The charges were read over and explained to the accused /
appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. 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.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P.
for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:
8. Learned defence counsel has submitted that P.W.1, who is the
mother-in-law of the informant and P.W.10, relative of the informant and
projected as eye witness by the prosecution, have not supported the
entire prosecution story. P.W.8- informant herself has contradicted her
own statement during the trial but the learned trial court has failed to
consider about her after thought story. P.W.9, husband of the informant
has also recorded false statement before the trial but the learned trial
court did not consider the same. Learned counsel for the appellants has
referred to the testimony of the doctor Anand Prakash Sah (P.W.4), who
had examined the injured Informant (P.W.8) Seema Choudhary and
found the following injuries:
1. Lacerated injury 1" x1/2"x1/2" on the right side of occipital
region of scalp.
2. Multiple abrasion and bruise over the left side of the neck with
defuse selling and tenderness on the whole neck.
3. Fracture of left 7th rib of the chest with acute pain
4. Bruise 3" x ¼" over the upper and lateral side of left arm with
defuse swelling.
9. This witness, the doctor, has opined that injury No.3 was found
grievous in nature and other injuries were found simple in nature.
Weapon used was hard and blunt substance. In the opinion of the doctor
the age of injury was found within 48 hours. He has proved the injury
report Ext.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
doctor has given his opinion on the basis of the x-ray report but the x-ray
report has not been brought on record and has not been marked as
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
exhibit. In this view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that in the absence of x-ray report, the opinion of the
doctor is not substantiated and therefore, the opinion of the doctor with
respect to the injury no.3, which is said to be grievous in nature becomes
doubtful and therefore, inference from the injury cannot be drawn that it
is an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and utmost it is an
offence punishable under Section 323, 325 and 342 of the IPC and not
under Section 307 of the IPC, which is not substantiated at all.
10. Further, it has also been pointed out by referring to the deposition
of the informant P.W.8 Seema Choudhary that there was admitted case of
land dispute and P.W.8, who is the victim in this case has categorically
stated in para 11 that there had been a case between both the parties from
before and thus enmity is an admitted fact. It is further submitted that the
entire story created by the informant is fully baseless concocted and
afterthought only for harassing the appellants nothing else. Further, it has
been pointed out that both the parties are „Gotias' and as such all the
witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are on
inimical terms with the appellants and therefore, exaggerated version of
the incident cannot be ruled out. Further, it has been submitted that the
Investigating Officer in this case has not been examined and it has
caused serious prejudice to the case of the defence.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and
submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled
against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellants under the aforesaid sections
and therefore the present appeal is devoid of merit and hence fit to be
dismissed.
Appraisal & Findings
12. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the Trial Court Record.
13. In order to prove its case, prosecution has been able to examine
altogether 13 witnesses who are as under:
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
1. P.W.1-Sumitra Choudhary (Mother-in-law of the
Informant)
2. P.W.2- Prabhu Dayal Jain (Uncle of the informant)
3. P.W.3-Kishore Kumar Jain (Cousin brother of the
Informant)
4. P.W.4-Dr. Anand Prakash Sah
5. P.W.5-Manoj Jain
6. P.W.6-Manoj Kumar Mandhelia
7. P.W.7-Manoj Kumar Ghosh
8. P.W.8-Seema Choudhary- Informant of the case
9. P.W.9.- Manoj Kumar Choudhary- Husband of the
informant
10. P.W.10-Shanti Devi- relative of the informant
11. P.W.11- Om Prakash Patwari
12. P.W.12-Arun Kumar Dokania
13. P.W.13- Vishwakarma Rai (Advocate‟s clerk)
Apart from the oral evidences the prosecution has proved some
documentary evidences also which are as under: -
1. Exhibit-1- Injury report of the informant Seema Choudhary
2. Exhibit-2- signature of the informant Seema Choudhary on the
fardbeyan
3. Exhibit-2/1- signature of P.W.9, husband of the informant on the
fardbeyan.
4. Exhibit-2/2- endorsement on the fardbeyan
5. Exhibit-3- Formal F.I.R.
The defence has also adduced some documentary evidences
which are as under:
1. Ext.A- Deposition of P.W.5 in the P.C.R. Case No. 150 of
1997, T.R Case No. 153/2003.
2. Ext. B- Certified copy of the complaint petition of P.C.R.
Case No. 150 of 1997.
14. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court proceeds to examine the
testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
15. P.W.-1 is Sumitra Choudhary (Mother-in-Law of the
informant). This witness is the eye witness of the occurrence and has not
supported the prosecution story. At Para 1 & 2 she stated that her father -
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
in law was doing toilet in the lane and in the mean time informant started
abusing him and thrown soap water over the stair due to which he had
fallen down and got injured, thereafter this witness had called a doctor
and got him treated. It is further stated that the informant herself slept
inside the Gali and started the drama. At Para 4 -she narrated about the
nature of the informant; at Para 5 she stated that the husband of the
informant was present at Barharwa and he had taken her to the Doctor
and thereafter both of them (informant and her husband) had gone to
Rajmanai. At Para 6 she has stated that nobody had injured the informant
neither such type of occurrence happened.
16. PW- 2 - Prabhu Dayal Jain (Uncle of the Informant) is the
hearsay witness not the eye witness of the case. This witness has stated
in his statement at Para 8 of his deposition that her niece (informant) has
also lodged more cases against the accused persons. In Para 15 this
witness has admitted that he knows that doctor since 4 to 5 years who
has treated the informant but he does not know his name and at Para 13
he has stated that whether she has been treated at Barharwa or not he has
no idea.
17. PW- 3 Kishore Kumar Jain (Cousin Brother of the Informant).
This witness is also a Hearsay Witness and he has stated in para 5 of his
deposition about the injury of his sister that "उसके माथे से खून बह रहा हैA
बाये बाह में खून जमा हुआ है A गले में खरोंच था तथा फू ला हुआ था गददन में
भी चोट थी A दोनों छाती पर खरोंच था तथा चोट थी A but in para 13 of his
cross examination he has stated that मैं बरहरवााँ सवा नौ बजे रात को पहुचा
था बरहरवााँ में मैंने बहन का इलाज नहीं कराया था माहौल खराब था इसललए
बरहरवााँ में इलाज नहीं कराए A समय भी नहीं था A He has further stated in
para 7 of his deposition that रात काफी हो चुकी थी A मैं बहन को उठाकर
ट्रेन के द्वारा सुबह सात बजे राजमहल पहुचा A मैं बहन को लेकर सीधा राजमहल
अस्पताल गयाA Thus form his version it appears that although he has seen
the injury of his sister but in the opinion of him the injury was not so
grievous in which immediate treatment was required.
18. PW- 4 Dr. Anand Kumar Shah the doctor who had examined the
injured Informant (P.W.8) Seema Choudhary and found the following
injuries:
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
1. Lacerated injury 1" x1/2"x1/2" on the right side of
occipital region of scalp.
2. Multiple abrasion and bruise over the left side of the
neck with defuse selling and tenderness on the whole neck.
3. Fracture of left 7th rib of the chest with acute pain
4. Bruise 3" x ¼" over the upper and lateral side of
left arm with defuse swelling.
This witness, the doctor, has opined that injury No.3 was found
grievous in nature and other injuries were found simple in nature.
Weapon used was hard and blunt substance. In the opinion of the doctor
the age of injury was found within 48 hours. He has proved the injury
report Ext.1. But he had contradicted his own report at para 7 of his
deposition that he has stated that he has written about the injury after
checking the X-ray and also stated that at Barharwa the X-ray was done
immediately. It is also stated that when informant came to him there was
no x-ray report present with the informant. He further admitted at para 8
of his deposition that he had not sent the X-ray plate to the Police. Even
the X-ray plate and X-ray report was not exhibited during the trial for
evidence.
19. PW- 5 Manoj Jain is the brother of the informant. This witness
has stated in his deposition that when he reached from Rajmahal to
Barharwa he saw his sister in injured condition. He has narrated all the
story of her sister after hearing from his sister. He is also not the eye
witness.
20. PW- 6 Manoj Kumar Mandhelia is an independent witness who
has admitted that informant was lying in the Gali then he took her to Dr.
K. Prasad in Barharwa but did not see any injury anywhere in her body.
He has been declared as hostile.
21. PW-7 Manoj Kumar Ghosh is also an independent witness who
has not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile.
22. PW- 8 Seema Choudhary is the informant of the case. this
witness has fully supported the prosecution story and alleged that the
appellants and other accused persons had assaulted her after entering her
room. At para 2 of her deposition she has stated that first of all Dilip
Choudhary had assaulted on her head with iron rod and thereafter her
head was injured and blood was oozing from her head. In para 3 in her
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
deposition, she has stated that then Rajesh Choudhary tried to throttle
her neck and snatched her gold chain. In para 4 she has stated that
Shyam Choudhary and Laxmi Narayan Choudhary started attack on her
chest with feast and legs and when she opposed the same and asked them
as to why they are beating her, then they demanded Rs. 10,000/- and told
her to bring that amount from her uncle and threatened her to kill her.
She has stated in para 11 of her cross examination that she had filed 2-3
case against accused persons.
23. PW- 9 Manoj Kumar Choudhary is the husband of the
informant who has supported the prosecution story, which was narrated
by his wife (informant). This witness has stated that he was not present
at time of occurrence as he had gone to Godda on 02.10.1998 and after
hearing about the occurrence returned from Godda on 04.10.1998 after
24 hrs. of the occurrence, he got his statement recorded as per his wife's
statement and he is also not the eye witness. It is further stated that this
witness has just repeated the entire story narrated by his wife.
24. PW- 10 Shanti Devi is the relative of the informant and
appellants (Cousin sister-in-law). This witness has been projected as eye
witness of the occurrence. This witness is the own relative of the
informant and appellants and this witness has not supported the
prosecution story and she has recorded fully different story. This witness
has seen the entire occurrence and stated at Para 1 & 2 that Laxmi
Narayan Choudhary was his cousin father-in-law and when he was
coming from the Lane (Gali) he started urinating in the lane and in the
mean time informant started abusing him and thrown soap water over the
stair and when he finished his toilet and returning due to which he fell
down and got injured. This witness stated at Para 3 of her deposition that
this witness called a doctor with the help of her husband and treated him.
This witness has stated at Para 4 in her deposition that the informant
herself fell down and slept in the lane. When neighbours took her to
doctor and returned back, thereafter informant lodged a false case and
created the false story against the appellants along with Laxmi Narayan
Choudhary who died during the trial. This witness has stated in her cross
examination from Para 6 to 12 that the entire story is false, baseless and
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
concocted. She stated that the informant had intentionally lodged a false
case against the appellants.
25. PW- 11 Om Prakash Patwari is the Secretary of Marwari
Society at Barharwa. This witness has also not supported the prosecution
story and he has stated that on 04.10.1998 this witness was called by
Seema Choudhary (informant) and Laxmi Narayan Choudhary for
Panchayat but due to some work he was not present at home and on
04.10.1998 when this witness was going through the stair informant
called him and told him to sort out the dispute between her family. On
that time the husband of informant was also present there. Thereafter he
told her that in morning he will sort out the matter but when he went to
the house of informant, he heard that the informant and her husband had
gone to Rajmahal, so dispute was not sorted out. This witness has also
stated in para 5 that when he had seen the informant there was no injury
on her body.
26. PW- 12 Arun Kumar Dokania is an independent witness. This
witness has also not supported the prosecution case. This witness has
stated 1,2 and 3 that तब मैं वहााँ गया और देखा कक गली में कोई औरत लगरी
है A तब हमलोगों ने लवचार लवमर्द करके उसे उठाए बाद में पता चला कक उसका
नाम सीमा चौधरी है A सीमा को उठाकर हम लोग बगल के एक डॉक्टर के प्रसाद
के लडस्पेंसरी में ले गए थे A डॉक्टर साहब उसका नाम लेकर पुकारे पर उसने कोई
आवाज नहीं कदया A इतने में सीमा का पलत मनोज चौधरी आ गया A मनोज
चौधरी के आवाज देने पर वह उठकर बैठ गयी A डॉक्टर साहब ने कहा कक सीमा
को कु छ नहीं हुआ है उसे सरकारी अस्पताल में ले जाइए A
27. PW- 13 Vishwakarma Rai is advocate‟s clerk. Who has stated that
formal FIR is in the writing and signature of S.I. Barharwa, S.
Choudhary which is marked as Ext.3. He has also proved endorsement
on fardbeyan marked as Ext.2.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidences including the
testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and
the documentary evidences exhibited on behalf of the prosecution
including inter alia the injury report - Ext.1, this Court finds force in the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants since
neither the formal F.I.R nor the place of occurrence has been formally
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
proved. But the fact remains in view of categorical statement of the
victim and the deposition of the doctor and the injury report marked as
Ext.1 that the charges leveled against the accused / appellants that they
had assaulted the victim P.W.8 is substantiated, although the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC for attempt to murder is not
proved. Offence of attempt to murder is a serious offence. In proving
commission of such an offence, the prosecution is required to prove the
basic ingredients of murder short of death. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in the case of Parsuram Pandey and others Vrs. State of Bihar reported
in (2004) 13 SCC 189 where under the circumstances of the case the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the
offence must be present:
(a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and
(b) the doing of an act towards it.
For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the
knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of
carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is
done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the
intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The
intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to
constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the
necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence "of attempt to
murder". Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct
evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors.
Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used,
the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the
circumstances in which the incident took place. On the evidence on record,
where the prosecution has been able to prove only that the villagers have
sustained injuries by indiscriminate firing and it was an open area with
none of the injured nearby there is a complete lack of evidence of intention
to cause such injuries for which the accused persons Parshuram and
Bishram could have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. Nature of the
injuries sustained by the villagers is simple. None of the witnesses have
stated that the firearm causing injuries was being used by any particular
accused for causing injuries to them. In fact the injured have not seen any of
the accused persons using firearms. There is no evidence about the distance
from which the said two accused fired. The only evidence led by the
prosecution is indiscriminate firing by Parshuram and Bishram which has
caused simple injuries to the villagers. Amongst the injured villagers, only
PW 1 and DW 1 were examined. Thus this evidence does not constitute the
intention or knowledge of the accused persons for committing the murder or
doing of an act towards it. The evidence only shows that the villagers have
sustained simple injuries. In the circumstances, we acquit Parshuram and
Bishram under Section 307 IPC.
On appraisal of the testimonies of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution, it is well founded that no offence under
10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
Section 307 is made out but these appellants are guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 342, 323, 325 read with section 34 of the IPC.
29. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed against the appellants in Sessions Case
No. 232 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002 arising out of
Barharwa P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal is set aside with respect to conviction and
order of sentence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. in as much as the
learned Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind properly in order to
appreciate the deposition and evidences adduced on behalf of the
prosecution particularly the deposition of the doctor PW.4 and the
informant P.W.8 in order to ascertain about the nature, mode, manner and
the weapon alleged to have been used for inflicting injuries upon the
victim in order to determine as to whether intention/ knowledge to
commit murder was there or not.
30. However, after appraisal of the evidences as discussed above, this
Court finds that appellants are guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 of the IPC only.
31. So far as sentence under Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 of the
IPC are concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants
that appellants have remained in jail for more than a month and injury
sustained by the informant P.W.8 is not on the vital part of the body and,
therefore, a lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence.
Since the appellant Shyam Sunder Chowdhary was aged about 58 years,
appellant Rajesh Kumar Chowdhary was aged about 30 years old and
appellant Dilip Kumar Chowdhary was aged about 45 years on the date
of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Trial Court and over a
period of time they have become old now and have suffered the rigors of
trial.
32. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellants, it is found that no useful purpose would be served by sending
the appellants again to the jail and justice would be meted if the
appellants are sentenced for the term of period already undergone by
them and suitable amount of fine is imposed by way of compensation to
11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
be given to the victim P.W.8 (Seema Choudhary). Hence the order of
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable
under Section under Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 of the IPC are set
aside.
33. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of appellants for the
offence punishable under Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 of the IPC, they
are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term of period already
undergone by them in custody and further they are sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each by way of
compensation in order to give it to the victim-P.W.8 (Seema Choudhary)
under all the three heads/ counts in a composite manner.
34. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of four
months is given to the appellants to pay the aforesaid fine and in default
of payment of fine, each of the appellant is directed to undergo S.I. for a
period of 1 year under all the three heads collectively. The appellants
may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil
Court in order to give it to the victim/injured P.W.-8 Informant (Seema
Choudhary), by way of compensation.
35. 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.
36. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment
appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released and/ or
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.
37. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said
fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the victim P.W.-8
(Seema Choudhary) and on her appearance the said fine amount, if so,
deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to her. In case, the said
victim 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 or else, as the
12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
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), Rajmahal, if required and the
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Rajmahal is directed to co-operate in this regard.
38. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeal is dismissed with
modification in the order of sentence.
39. 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.
40. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Madhav Prasad has effectively and
efficiently rendered his assistance to this Court in the instant matter. Let
a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Member Secretary,
JHALSA in order to make payment of the professional fee to the learned
Amicus Curiae as per rules and regulations.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 28th February 2025
13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1230 of 2006
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1241 of 2006
