Dumka(Jharkhand) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal DB No. 998 of 2015 ------ Sandeep Kumar Singh son of Gopal Singh, resident of village-Kustair Town, P.O.& P.S.- Deoghar,District-Deoghar, Jharkhand ..... Appellant The State of Jharkhand Versus …… Respondent With Criminal Appeal DB No. 979 of 2015 Dharmendra Singh son of Ramjeewan Singh, resident of Saraiyahat, PO&PS- Saraiyahat, District-Dumka(Jharkhand) ..... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent With Criminal Appeal DB No. 410 of 2016 Munna Kumar Singh, son of Shanbhu Nath Singh, resident of Purandaha ..... Appellant Lal Kothi, P.O+ PS+ Dist- Deoghar(Jharkhand) The State of Jharkhand Versus ------ …… Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. M Shah Deo, Advocate : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, Advocate : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondents : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP Order No. 10 Dated- 12.08.2024 ------ 1. When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the parties are present. 2. The present criminal appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2015 and order of sentence dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-fast Track Court(Rape Cases), Deoghar, in Session Trial No. 159 of 2011, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011(G.R. No. 151 of 2011), whereby and whereunder the appellants namely Sandeep Kumar Singh, Munna Kumar Singh and Dharmendra Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 394/411 of the IPC and the appellant namely Sandeep Kumar Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for having committed offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Munna Kumar Singh shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months for having committed offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Dharmendra Singh shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months for having committed offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Sandeep Kumar Singh has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for having committed offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months for having committed offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story as narrated by the informant namely Sadanand Mishra, in his fardbeyan recorded by S.I. K.K. Sahu, Officer- in-charge of Deoghar Town P.S. on 23.2.2011 at about 11:30 pm at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, briefly stated is that he had engaged Churki Soren aged about 35 years as his maid servant at his house, since the informant was residing alone after his retirement. It has been further narrated by the informant in his fardbeyan that on 23.02.2011, he had invited his friend Ashok Babu, District Welfare Officer, Deoghar at his residence over dinner, they took dinner along with him and he left his house along with friend Ashok Babu to drop Ashok Babu at Ambedkar Chowk by his Maruti car. It has been further narrated by the informant in his fardbeyan that at about 10:20p.m. when he returned back to his house and pressed the call bell, having found no response, he pushed the door and the door was open. The informant has also narrated in his fardbeyan that when he reached near the cabin, he saw Churki lying in a pool of blood and her neck has been slit with some sharp cutting weapon and since she was not in position to say something, the informant took her to the hospital taking the assistance of the tenant and Churki disclosed the names of the three miscreants through gesture. The informant has further stated in his fardbeyan, that when he named the neighbours, Churki replied in affirmative that Munna Nayak was involved in the occurrence. The informant has also claimed that his Nokia mobile set bearing No. 9934157810 along with a Sony Vedio camera was missing from his house. The informant has claimed in his fardbeyan that the miscreants had injured his maid servant Churki Soren by means of a sharp cutting weapon with an intention to kill her and at the same time they had committed theft of a Nokia mobile, camera and other articles. 4. The learned trial Court had conducted the full-fledged trial and imposed the conviction which is under challenge. 5. Heard the learned defense counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in their respective appeals. 6. The learned defense counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants in all the aforesaid three appeals have submitted that they don’t want to argue their case on merit and therefore have confined their argument only to the aspect of sentence and not on the point of conviction under section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place as far as back on 23.02.2011 and all the three appellants have been suffering the rigour of criminal prosecution since last 13 years. It has been further pointed out that the appellant namely Munna Kumar Singh, is the first-door neighbour of the informant and there had been some dispute relating to drainage/sewerage over the land and thus both the parties were in inimical terms. Further, it is submitted that there is nothing on record to say about the criminal history of any of the appellants. It has been further pointed out that PW-7, the doctor who has medically examined the injured has found only one injury and there is no charge of repeated blow inflicted by the appellants on the injured person, which indicates that there was no intention for any of the appellants to commit the offence of attempt to murder within the meaning of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore it is utmost the case of section 324 of the IPC and not section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, it has been pointed out that all the appellants have already served the sentence for a substantiative period of time as under:- (cid:216)a0 canh dk uke ,oa firk dk uke okn la[;k] /kkjk ,oa ltk 1- 2 3 /kesZUnz flag] is0&jkethou flag eqUUkk dqekj flag] is0&’kaHkqukFk flag lanhi dqekj flag] is0&xksiky flag Deoghar PS- 51/2011, ST- 159/2011 U/S-394, 307, 34 IPC ltk&10 o"kZ Fine- 5,000/- f(cid:216)feuy vihy la[;k Cr. A (DB) 979/2015 Cr. A (DB) 410/2015 Cr. A (DB) 998/2015 fopkjk/khu vof/k ltkokj vof/k fnuakd 25-02- 2011 ls 15-10- 2015 rd 04 o"kZ 07 ekg 21 fnuA fnukad 25-02- 2011 ls 15-10- 2015 rd 04 o"kZ 07 ekg 21 fnuA fnuakd 25-02- 2011 ls 15-10- 2015 rd 04 o"kZ 07 ekg 21 fnuA fnukad 16-10-2015 ls 24-11-2016 rd 01 o"kZ 01 ekg 09 fnuA fnuakd 16-10-2015 ls 13-08-2016 rd 09 ekg 28 fnuA fnuakd 16-10-2015 ls 25-11-2016 rd 01 o"kZ 01 ekg 10 fnuA dqy lalheu vof/k 05 o"kZ 09 ekg 00 fnu 05 o"kZ 05 ekg 19 fnu 05 o"kZ 09 ekg 01 fnu vftZr ifjgkj ifjgkj lfgr dqy vof/k vH;qfDr & & & 05 o"kZ 09 ekg 00 fnu 05 o"kZ 05 ekg 19 fnu 05 o"kZ 09 ekg 01 fnu fnuakd 24-11-2016 dks tekur ij dkjk ls eqDr fnukad 13-08-2016 dks tekur ij dkjk ls eqDr fnuakd 25-11-2016 dks tekur ij okn ls eqDr I/D-02 Month v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk] nqedkA In view of the aforesaid submissions, advanced by the defense counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that this court may consider for the alteration of sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court, and by imposing sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. The counsels further submitted that the appellants are ready to pay a reasonable fine amount by way of compensation in order to give to the victim, PW-6 Churki Soren, daughter of late Thakur Hansda, resident of Mauza Aamgachi P.S. Jama, district Dumka, presently living at Purandaha, Kamal Kothi, PS. Deoghar town, district Deoghar whatsoever, awarded by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in their respective appeals have submitted that since the defense counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants do not want to argue this case on the point of conviction, therefore this Court may uphold the conviction as awarded by the learned trial court below. As far as, the sentence is concerned it is submitted by the State counsels that all the appellants have almost served the sentence of more than five years in this case. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State further submitted that they do not deny the fact that injured PW6 have been inflicted with only one injury, but the injury is on the vital part i.e. on the neck of the person, and therefore the conviction of the appellants under section 307 of the IPC by the learned trial court for the offence of attempt to murder has rightly been held on the basis of evidences as put down by the learned trial court and in the circumstances of this case, the sentence may be modified by imposing a suitable fine by way of compensation. 8. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case. 9. It manifests from the contentions raised on behalf of the defense counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants that they do not want to argue this case on point of conviction and therefore, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court(Rape Cases), Deoghar in Session Trial Case No. 159 of 2011, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011(G.R. No. 151 of 2011). 10. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that this occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2011 and all the appellants have been suffering the traumas and miseries of the criminal prosecution for a long period of time. Further, it is also found from the record that there is nothing to show the criminal history of the appellants. It has come into the evidence that one of the appellant Munna Singh was the first door neighbour of the informant and there had been dispute regarding drainage and sewerage between the parties, and further it is also found that the maximum sentence awarded by the learned trial Court was of ten years and the appellants have remained in custody for about six years , as per the report submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State, which is available on record. Further, it is also found from the testimony of the doctor who is PW-7 that there is only one blow and no repeated blow inflicted upon the victim but the injury was found to be grievous in nature. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of sentence already served by the appellants, it is found that the purpose of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that the custodial sentence of the appellants is restricted to the period already undergone by them.
Decision
12. In the backdrop, we set aside the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court below against each of the appellant in connection with ST No. 159 of 2011, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011(G.R. No. 151 of 2011), and after altering the sentence this Court imposes the sentence of imprisonment for each of the appellant to the period already undergone by them. And further, we impose a sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by each of the appellant by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-6 Churki Soren, daughter of late Thakur Hansda, resident of Mauza Aamgachi, P.S. Jama, district Dumka, presently living at Purandaha, Kamal Kothi, PS. Deoghar town, district Deoghar, within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order before the concerned jurisdictional trial court on proper identification of the victim and in default of payment of fine, the appellants are directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. If the appellants fails to pay the compensation amount within stipulated period of time of four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order, the learned trial Court will take all necessary steps to ensure that each of the appellant serves the sentence as awarded by this Court. 13. The appellants are directed to deposit the said fine amount in the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court, and thereafter, they shall be released forthwith and/or discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds furnished by them. The learned trial Court is also directed to issue notice to the victim Churki Soren, and on her appearance the said fine amount deposited by the appellants will be disbursed to her by way of compensation. In case, the victim does not put in her appearance, or her location could not be found, then the fine amount may be disbursed to any kith or kin of the injured person as the learned trial Court may deem fit and appropriate after proper identification, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer(PLV) of District Legal services Authority(DLSA), Deoghar, if required and the Secretary, DLSA, Deoghar, is directed to co-operate in this regard. 14. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed with modification in order of sentence as awarded by the learned jurisdictional trial Court in respect of all the three aforesaid appellants passed in S.T. No. 159 of 2011, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011(G.R. No. 151 of 2011). 15. Pending Interlocutory Applications if any, stands disposed of. 16. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit. Abha/- (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) ( Navneet Kumar, J.)