Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1145 of 2008 Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon ------ Versus …… Appellant The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Appellant For the State ----- : Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. ------ Oral Judgment in Court Dated:30.06.2023 This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1145 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2008 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No.07 of 2003 (G.R.
Legal Reasoning
No.331 of 2002, arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No.115 of 2002 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 385, 332 and 353 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo SI for two (02) years for the offence section 385 IPC, SI for two (02) years for the offence under section 332 IPC and SI for two (02) years for the offence under section 353 IPC. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.09.2002 in the evening at 4.30 P.M Samir Bhattacharya Project Executive Pradan Office Kuru was in his office with his colleague Santos Tiwari. A boy aged about 20 years came there and handed over a pamphlet. When he opened the letter he found that it was written on the letter pad of Kranti Kari Kishan Committee and was addressed to Samir Bangali. The letter was issued by memo no.1103 dated 16.09.2002 purported to be written by M.C.C. Sub-Zonal Commander and 2 demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made therein. The extortion amount was to be delivered near Hirhi School on 20.09.2002 at 12.00 O’ clock. Threat to life was given, in the event of any information being given to police. It is stated that after receipt of the letter the senior officers of his department were informed and on 20.09.2002 the informant proceeded from Kuru to Lohardaga for informing the S.P. Lohardaga, but near Chiri bridge he met officer incharge Kuru, Ram Baleshwar Roy and Shyam Kishore Singh S.I and he informed in detail about the incidence. The S.P., Lohardaga was also informed by Rambaleshwar Roy on Wireless. Under the instruction of the S.P., Lohardaga police personnel in plain dress were deployed at the place, where amount was to be delivered by Samir Bhattacharya. It is stated that at the fixed time the informant Samir Bhattacharya proceeded to the designated place near Hirhi School. The police personnel were also deployed in the vicinity according to operational plan and one Shyam Kishore Singh and Ram Baleshwar Roy both in plain dress were deployed close to Hirhi School. As per the plan he arrived with a briefcase on his motor cycle at the appointed place at 11.45, police personnel also took position there. After one hour he saw that at about 200 yards near the bush two persons were moving and both of them came near him and inquired about his name and demanded money. The informant Samir told them that the full amount could not be arranged so the part amount has been brought and both of them started threatening him from not disclosing the matter to the police. In the meantime, Shyam Kishore Singh came out from the hiding and pounced on the miscreants. After scuffle one of them was apprehended who disclosed his name as Hira Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon whereas the other one was able to escape. Soon the other members of police party also arrived there. Arrested 3 accused disclose the name of the co-accused Ram Dev Oraon who managed escape from the place of occurrence. Thereafter Kuru P.S. Case No.115 of 2022 for an offence under Sections 386, 387, 323, 341, 332, 307, 353/34 of the IPC was instituted. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for one year and around eleven months and thus he has almost served the sentence and hence lenient view may be taken. 4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. However, learned APP has fairly submitted that lenient view may be taken as the appellant has almost served the sentence. 5. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for both the sides. 6. It transpires that the FIR was lodged on 20.09.2002 by the informant against the appellant for demanding levy of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs) vide letter dated 16.09.2002 purported to be written by M.C.C Sub-Zonal Commander. 7. It transpires that charge sheet was submitted against the appellant namely Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon and Ramesh Oraon under sections 386, 387, 323, 341, 332, 307, 353/34 of the IPC before the learned C.J.M, Lohardaga on 17.12.2002. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M took cognizance against 4 the appellant under sections 386, 387, 323, 341, 332, 307, 353/34 of the IPC. 8. After supplying the police papers to the appellant, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions and the charges were framed against the appellant namely Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon and Ramesh Oraon under sections 387, 332, 307/34 and 353/34 of the IPC on 02.04.2003 by the then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga and to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. It transpires that during trial the prosecution has got examined six (06) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W-1 is Sima Prakash i.e. the doctor, (ii) P.W-2 is Ajay Kumar Shyamal, (iii) P.W-3 is Santosh Tiwari, (iv) P.W-4 is Samir Bhattacharya i.e. the informant, (v) P.W-5 is Ram Baleshwar Roy, (vi) P.W-6 is Shyam Kishore Singh i.e. the I.O. 10. It transpires that the prosecution in support of its case got marked the following documents which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 is the injury report of Shyam Kishore Singh i.e. P.W-6, (ii) Exhibit-1/1 is the injury report of the informant, (iii) Exhibit-1/2, Exhibit-1/3 and Exhibit-1/4 are signature of Santosh Tiwari and Ajay Kumar Shyamal and (iv) Exhibit-1/5 is signature of Samir Bhattacharya in the fardbeyan. 11. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 23.02.2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga and the appellant had denied the circumstances put forth before him. 5 12. Neither any defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant nor any document was marked as exhibit on behalf of the appellant. 13. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga has convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned above and sentenced him on different counts as mentioned earlier. 14. It transpires from the record that P.W-1 Sima Prakash is doctor of this case who has examined on the person injured i.e. the Sub-Inspector Shyam Kishore Singh and the informant Samir Bhattacharya. 15. It transpires that P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-5 namely Ajay Kumar Shyamal, Santosh Tiwari and Ram Baleshwar Roy have supported and corroborated the prosecution case. P.W-4 Samir Bhattacharya i.e. the informant of this case and has supported the prosecution case. it also transpires P.W-6 Shyam Kishore Singh i.e. the I.O has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case. 16. However, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga has convicted the appellant namely Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon for the offences under sections 385, 332 and 353 I.P.C but has acquitted the appellant under sections 387 and 307 of the I.P.C. 17. From perusal of the Lower Court Record, it transpires that the appellant was arrested on 20.09.2002 and he was released on bail vide order 16.08.2004 passed in B.A No.3789 of 2004 by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the appellant has furnished his bail bond on 21.08.2004. Therefore, the appellant has remained in custody for around one year and eleven months. 18. Considering on the facts and in the circumstances mentioned above, the conviction of the appellant namely namely Hira Lal Oraon @ Hira @ Sohrai Oraon for the offences under 6 sections 385, 332 and 353 I.P.C passed in S.T. No.07 of 2003 (G.R. No.331 of 2002, arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No.115 of 2002 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga is hereby affirmed. However, so far as sentence is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for one year and around eleven months and hence the period undergone by the appellant during the custody in jail shall be the period of sentence and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1145 of 2008 is dismissed with modification as mentioned above. 20. Let the L.C.R be sent back to the learned court below at once. Saket/ N.A.F.R. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)