1. Binod Gope, Son of Yadav Gope. 2. Tulsi Gope, Son of Late Shankar v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2016 ------ 1. Binod Gope, Son of Yadav Gope. 2. Tulsi Gope, Son of Late Shankar Gope. 3. Tikan Gope, Son of Late Dula Gope. All resident of Village – Pipradih, P.O. and P.S. – Barkagaon, District – Hazaribag. .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate : Md. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ------ ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 03.04.2024 Pronounced On-15.05.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2016 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2015 passed by learned J.M., 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 2692 of 2011 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 123 of 2011, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine Page 1 of 7 S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. has been upheld and confirmed. 3. The facts giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that one Kanti Devi has lodged an FIR stating inter alia therein that at about 8:00 A.M. her husband Bhola Gope ploughing his field, meanwhile informant went there with breakfast for her husband and saw that Bindo Gope, Tulsi Gope and Tikan Gope armed with lathi and danda were abusing and assaulting her husband due to which her husband fell down and became unconscious sustaining injuries. It further alleged that accused persons also started to molest her chest and tried to commit rape with her, but due to her screaming, they fled away threatening her to kill. Thereafter, anyhow both returned and lodged this case. It is also alleged that in course of above incident the accused persons snatched her golden ear tops. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 447, 354, 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Page 2 of 7 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences and the concerned trial court took cognizance of the above offences and proceeded for trial explaining the accusations to the accused persons. 5. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court making reference to several judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of awarding adequate sentence recorded finding that the petitioners are not entitled for extending benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 341, to undergo imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. with default stipulation in case of non-payment of fine. 6. Against the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial court, Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2015 was instituted, which has also been dismissed, but the learned appellate court has made no comment for not extending the benefit of Section 3 / 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners. 7. Assailing the impugned judgments and order, learned counsel for the petitioners instead of projecting his argument Page 3 of 7 towards conviction under Section 341 / 323 I.P.C. have confined towards non-application of provisions under Section 354 I.P.C. in the factual scenario of this case and conviction and sentence thereunder as well as the entitlement of the petitioners for benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties and some scuffle took place with the husband of the informant and there was some exchange of assault which has been intervened by the informant and in that course, she was also sustained some injuries. 9. Under such circumstances, offence under Section 354 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. is not warranted at all. Even if it is assumed that any of the accused petitioners has dashed or caused some hurt to the informant that cannot be said to be intended to outrage her modesty. Both the courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the evidences and mis-interpreted the above provisions. 10. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has given pedantic observation regarding award of adequate sentence with a view to preserve on ordering the society in the light of several judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, but has forgotten the principal Page 4 of 7 object of punishment is basis of reformation and not recidivism. There is no material to show that there was any previous conviction of the petitioners for any offence, rather they are respectable persons of the society and law-abiding citizens, hence entitled for benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 11. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order / judgment passed by the both the courts below and there is no scope of any interference in this revision and it is crime against woman, which is serious in nature. Hence, the petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and this revision is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and find that the genesis of occurrence as portrait in the testimony of witnesses as well as depicted in the FIR simply shows that while the informant’s husband was ploughing the field, the present petitioners intercepted and some scuffle took place between informant’s husband and present petitioner and there was use of force and assault, meanwhile, informant reached there for providing breakfast to her husband and she was also Page 5 of 7 abused, dashed and inflicted some injuries while preventing her husband. This circumstance does not indicate that there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioners particularly to outrage the modesty of the informant by doing any unlawful acts. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. by the concerned trial court and its confirmation by the appellate court does not appears to be justified under law, which is fit to be set aside. 13. So far conviction and sentence of petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323 / 341 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is cogent and reliable evidence as discussed by both the courts below, does not find any discrepancies to disbelieve or discard the same, as such conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offence is hereby affirmed. 14. Considering the nature, character and age of the petitioners and also in view of the fact that it is their first offence and there is chance of their reformation and restoration in peaceful life, I feel inclined to extend the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this Page 6 of 7 order and the concerned trial court shall duly admonish them and release them under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 16. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 17. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.
Legal Reasoning
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 15/05/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 7 of 7