The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 46 of 2020 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No.-119/16) -------- Sohan Yadav aged about 40 years, son of Late Chutar Yadav, resident of Village Karamdiha Kerbank, P.O. and P.S. Taljhari, District-Dumka. The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- .......Appellant .......Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. --------- --------- 09/Dated:-05.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2019 & 11.12.2019, respectively, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No.-119/16 arising out of Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 294/15 corresponding to G.R. No.1543/15; whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (5) years for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, he shall have to undergo three months S.I. and further he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one (1) month for the offence committed under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is based on the statement of the informant Shankar Yadav, in which it has been alleged that on 03.12.2015 at about 07:00 A.M., his buffalo got freed and the informant caught it again and was going to tie the buffalo. In the meantime, his brother-in-law, Sohan Yadav came armed with Dav and started abusing his father. It is further alleged that when his father asked him not to abuse then Sohan Yadav came and inflicted Dav blow on his head with an intention to kill him. When the informant tried to save his father, then he too was assaulted by means of Dav on his arm causing injury in the right hand. It is further alleged that when Sunita Devi, wife of younger brother came to rescue him, then she too was assaulted, as a result of which she sustained injury on the back of her scalp. The incident was witnessed by a number of people. The reason behind the occurrence was that Sohan Yadav living forcibly in his house and did not vacate the house even on his repeated requests. Accordingly, on the basis of the written application, the case has been instituted vide Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 294/15, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken and charges were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally the trial court convicted him under Section 307 and 341 of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has not at all considered that P.W.-3, P.W.-5 have not supported the case of prosecution specially the evidence of informant with respect to use of weapon. He submits that the statements of injured witnesses are contradictory either with respect to the use of weapon or the manner of occurrence. He adds that there was a land dispute between the relatives for which the present false case has been instituted. He further submits that all the persons have sustained simple injury and no case is made out under Section 307 of the I.P.C. He further submits that the injuries are simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance and Doctor has clearly opined that injury can be sustained by fall; as such appellant’s conviction under Section 307 may be converted into lesser offence i.e. under Section 323 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, after the aforesaid argument, made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2015 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 2 kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as appellant is middle-aged person and the appellant has remained in custody for about 296 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal antecedent, so some leniency may be granted by this court. 6. Learned A.P.P. 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. 7. 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, it is evident that there was a land dispute between the parties and all the persons have sustained simple injury; as such, no case is made out under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Further, on the one hand, the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and on the other hand, the Doctor has clearly opined that injury may be sustained by falling on hard ground. 8. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the appellant deserves to be convicted for a lesser offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is, hereby, converted under Section 323 IPC and appellant is sentenced for R.I. for a period of one year under Section 323 IPC. However, conviction under Section 341 IPC against the appellant is hereby sustained. 9. From record it further appears that the appellant has already remained in custody for about 296 days and has never misused the privilege of bail. Further, as per record he is not having any criminal antecedent, thus he has a chance to reform; as such, the sentence for the offence u/s 323 IPC is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- before 3 D.L.S.A. Dumka. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Dumka; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by this Court. 10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed. 11. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court and the appellant through the concerned police station. 13. Let the LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. vikas/- (Deepak Roshan, J.) 4