Palamau, Jharkhand) Janki Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 (Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No.75 of 2004, arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No.21 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.819 of 2002, Palamau, Jharkhand) Janki Yadav … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR --- For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Manoj kr. No.2, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. JUDGMENT DATED: 07.02.2024 This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No.75 of
Legal Reasoning
2004, arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No.21 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.819 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for one month, and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) which would be equally distributed in all the 5 victims of the case and in default of the payment in compensation amount the accused/appellant was further directed to undergo S.I. of 4 months. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the fardbeyan informant Subashi Devi (PW-3) w/o Yugesh Yadav, resident of village Balra Hariharganj, Distt. Palamau to S.I. of police at Hariharganj Hospital on 26.06.2002 at about 2 PM that there was a land dispute with Raghunath Yadav (elder brother of her husband), as he had already constructed a house on his portion of the land, but even then, used to claim her 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 portion. On this very issue, on 26.06.2002 at about 9 AM, Raghunath Yadav and his sons started abusing and threatening the informant side. They were armed with lathi and tangi. When the husband of the informant objected, then Janki Mahto hit him with the tangi on his right hand, due to which he received a cut injury and fell down. When Murli Yadav, son of the informant came to save his father, then Manki Mahto hit him with tangi on his right thigh due to which, he too received a cut injury and fell down. Seeing it, when Yogan Yadav came there, then Janki Yadav hit him with tangi on the left side of his stomach, due to which, he too received a cut injury and fell down. When informant herself went there, then Raghunath Yadav and Yadu Yadav assaulted her with lathi, causing a fracture in her right hand and an injury on her right ear. At last, when Muniya Devi, the daughter in law of the informant, came there, then Yadu Yadav assaulted her with lathi, due to which, her head received a cut injury. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Subashi Devi, the FIR has been lodged as Hariharganj P.S. Case no. 21/2002 dated 26.06.2002 u/s 341/342/307/323/324/325/326/506/34 IPC against four accused named as Raghunath Yadav, Janki Yadav, Manki Yadav and Yadu Yadav. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against only three accused named as Raghunath Yadav, Janki Yadav and Manki Yadav u/s 341/342/307/323/324/325/326/506/34 IPC and accordingly cognizance of the offence has been taken on 20.02.2004. On 10.03.2004, after serving the copies of police papers to the defence, the case records of three accused, named Raghunath Yadav, Janki Yadav and Manki Yadav has been committed to the Court of Sessions. On 20.05.2004, charge u/s 307/324/323/34 IPC has been framed against the three accused persons named as Raghunath Yadav, Janki Yadav and Manki Yadav, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 During the trial, due to death, the proceeding against accused Manki Yadav has been dropped on 16.06.2010 and the proceeding against accused Raghunath Yadav has been dropped on 21.03.2013. And hence, only one accused, Janki Yadav had faced the trial and the learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo S.I. for one month. 5. Further, it is submitted that the learned court had also directed to the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be equally distributed in all the five victims, namely Yugeshwar Yadav, Subashi Devi, Murli Yadav, Muniya Devi and Yogan Yadav and in default of payment of compensation, the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for four month. 6. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submitted that he does not want to argue this case on merit and he is confining his argument only on the point of sentence. 7. It is submitted that this occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2002 and the appellant is suffering with misery and hardship of the criminal prosecution for more than about 22 years. 8. Further, it has been submitted that this appellant, during the course of the criminal proceeding, has already remained in jail for more than six months, including the pre-conviction period. 9. Further, it is submitted that both the parties, including the 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 informant’s people and the appellant, were gotiyas and there was a land dispute between them, which is admitted case of the prosecution. 10. Further it has been submitted that there is nothing on record to show about the criminal history of the appellant and over a period of time, the appellant is aged about 57 years old. 11. Further, it has been submitted that the doctor, in this case, has not been examined and non-examination of the doctor has caused serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution, because no injury report has been brought on record in order to appreciate the injuries caused to any one of the victims and thus it is a simple case of hurt under Section 323 of IPC. 12. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail and instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, the sentence of fine, as imposed by the learned court below, may be sustained, for which, the appellant is ready, by modification in order of sentence. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State- 13. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there were several persons injured in this case, although the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and he has been acquitted for the charges levelled against him under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. But the learned APP did not deny this fact that no injury report has been brought on record, nor the doctor has been examined in order to substantiate the injuries as alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured persons. It has also been pointed out that several summons were issued to the doctor, but no doctor was examined on behalf of the prosecution, neither the doctor, who physically examined the injured person, nor any another doctor has been examined in order to bring on record, either the injury report or any other material to substantiate the injuries. 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 14. Further, the learned APP also did not deny this fact in view of the admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties are gotiyas and there was a landed property dispute. 15. Further it has also not been denied that there is nothing on record to show about the criminal history of the appellant and therefore it is submitted on behalf of the State that a suitable order on the point of sentence after upholding the conviction under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code may be passed. Appraisal & Findings 16. Having heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the record of this case including the lower court records. 17. It is found from the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence that the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. He has served the sentence during the pendency of the criminal proceeding for about six months, from 27.06.2002 to 23.12.2002 and further from 07.12.2007 to 11.12.2007 and later on from 08.02.2013 to 12.02.2013 as per the record. 18. Further it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the parties are gotiyas and there was landed property dispute between the parties and there is nothing on record to show about the criminal history against the appellant. Further it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and he is confining his argument only on the point of sentence and therefore in the interest of justice, it’s found that the purpose of justice would be meted out, if the order of sentence is modified after upholding the judgment of conviction. 19. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC passed against this appellant by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No.75 of 2004, arising out of Hariharganj 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 P.S. Case No.21 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.819 of 2002. 20. Further, on the point of sentence, this Court found under the facts and circumstances of this case that it is just and fair to modify the order of sentence. 21. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 28.02.2017 passed by Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No.75 of 2004, arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No.21 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.819 of 2002 is set-aside and the appellant Janki Yadav is sentenced to the imprisonment for the term of period already undergone by him and further the appellant is sentenced to a fine as imposed by the learned court below, i.e. Rs.1,000/ (Rs. One Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order to give to the five victims, namely Yugeshwar Yadav, Subashi Devi, Murli Yadav, Muniya Devi and Yogan Yadav. 22. Since, the appellant Janki Yadav is on bail and, therefore, a period of three months’ time is given from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victims-injured. 23. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to victims-injured within the stipulated period of time, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months. 24. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellant, he will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellant serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 25. The appellant may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment he deposits the fine amount, he (the appellant) shall be released forthwith 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.553 of 2017 on deposit of the said fine amount and he shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. 26. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellant, the notice shall be sent to the victims-injured and on their appearance, the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to them. 27. In case, if the said victims is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not present before the Court after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victims-injured as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Palamau at Daltonganj, if required. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence. 29. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below for its compliance in letter and spirit. (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 07.02.2024/NAFR R.Kumar/-