[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Gura Tiriya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026
2026:JHHC:1053
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2017
-----
Gura Tiriya, son of Late Ladura Tiriya, resident of Village-Sarbil, P.O.
Noamundi, P.S. Noamundi, District- West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nitish Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 14/Dated 15th January, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Nitish Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
12.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2017 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in S.T. No. 263 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant, Gura Tiriya has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 323/ 379/34 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-
under Sections 323/34 of IPC and R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.
1,000/- under Sections 379/34 of IPC and in default of payment
of fine, S.I. for three months and the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted
that he is only challenging/assailing the order of sentence dated
13.04.2017 and as far as the judgment of conviction is concerned,
he is not challenging/assailing the same.
4. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 323/379/34 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for 1 year and
the sentences were directed to run concurrently, out of which the
2026:JHHC:1053
appellant Gura Tiriya has remained in jail for 9 months and 26
days out of R.I. of 1 year of the sentence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
appellant is a poor person and the sole breadwinner of the
family, who has to look after his family.
6. On the aforesaid premise, prayer has been made for reducing the
sentence of the appellant to the sentence already undergone.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer of the appellant
on the premise that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a very
lenient view and no further lenient view ought to be taken by this
Court.
8. This Court has carefully gone through the material available on
record. It transpires that the present appeal has been filed by the
appellants, namely Ladura Tiriya and Guru Tiriya, who were
convicted under Sections 323/379/411/34 of IPC and one of the
appellant, namely, Ladura Tiriya has died during the pendency
of the appeal and thus, the instant appeal stands abated against
the Ladura Tiriya vide order dated 01.05.2024 passed by this
Court.
9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant and also the fact that out of 1 year of the rigorous
imprisonment, the appellant has already served 9 months and 26
days, in judicial custody and is facing the agony of criminal trial
for more than 15 years.
10. As the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2017 has not been
assailed on behalf of the appellant, therefore, there is no
interference, in the abovesaid judgment of conviction dated
12.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 263 of 2012.
11. This Court is of considered view that the ends of justice would be
met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is to be modified to
the period of sentence already undergone. Therefore, the
sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 323/379/34 of
2026:JHHC:1053
IPC is modified to the extent the period of sentence already
undergone.
12. Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal, being Cr. Appeal (S.J.)
No. 978 of 2017 is allowed, subject to above-said modification in
order of sentence only.
13. Since the appellant, Gura Tiriya, is already on bail, he is
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.
14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
15.01.2026
Umesh /Abhishek
