The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1884 of 2004 ---- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 2003. Pappu Modi --- -Versus- ....Appellant The State of Jharkhand CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- ....Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Sachin Mahato, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P 11/27.07.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. -- 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 2003, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B & 201 I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 304B IPC and R.I. for one year under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased was married with the accused-appellant on 12.05.2003 according to Hindu rites and
Legal Reasoning
customs. On the next day of marriage, the accused-appellant and his family members started demanding dowry and for that end subjected her to torture. After getting information, the informant and others went to deceased’s sasural on three occasions to express inability to fulfil the demand of dowry. On 28.05.2003, the informant came to know about missing of the deceased from her sasural. During course of search on 29.05.2003 the dead body of the deceased was discovered at Telaiya Dam. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) The impugned judgment and order of conviction is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and as such is liable to be set aside. (ii) The medical evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 completely falsifies the prosecution case that the deceased had been 2. murdered and that her dead body had been thrown in the dam water. The medical evidence clearly support that the deceased had committed suicide by drowning. (iii) Learned trial court ought to have held in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant admittedly being a “Kadhua” Marriage, there was no question of any dowry demand by the appellant. (iv) Learned trial court ought to have held in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case that there was no evidence worth the name on record to establish that the appellant or any of his family members had ever assaulted or pushed the deceased in the Tilaiya Dam causing her death by asphyxia. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2003 and the appellant has suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as the appellant is middle aged person and he remained in custody for about 3 years 7 months 12 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellant; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, and looking to the comprehensive facts and circumstances of the case and also the prosecution has proved the charge, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained. 3. 7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to sentence awarded to him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice as admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 3 years 7 months 12 days. 8. Thus, on the point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 2003 and about 20 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform. 9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-. 10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- before D.L.S.A, Koderma. 11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Koderma; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. 12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
Decision
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. 13. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition. 4. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Koderma and also to the appellant through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. jk (Deepak Roshan, J.)