) 1. Mulidhar Singh 2. Ishwari Prasad Singh 3. Shobha Singh 4. Ram Lakhan v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1609 of 2003 --------- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.11.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions FTC-Vth, Giridih corresponding to S.T. No.433 of 1993.) 1. Mulidhar Singh 2. Ishwari Prasad Singh 3. Shobha Singh 4. Ram Lakhan Singh 5. Sachchida Nand Singh 6. Hemlal Singh 7. Manjho Singh 8. Jai Narayan Singh ------- ….. …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. …. Respondent CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent-State :Mr. Gautam Rakesh , A.P.P ------- :Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Adv. ……… 09/08.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.11.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC-Vth, Giridih corresponding to S.T. No.433 of 1993, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304 part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Five years. 3. The brief fact of the case as per the written report of Hemlal Turi who died subsequently is that on 05.06.1983 when the informant was sowing paddy crops in his field all the accused persons armed with deadly weapon like bhala, farsa, tangi sword and lathy came there and prevented him from agricultural work. While the informant rejected their obstruction they started assaulting him. The informant run away to his house and the accused persons followed him and entered into his house and started assaulting his family members also. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per report appellant nos.1, 2, 4 & 6, namely, Mulidhar Singh, Ishwari Prasad Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh and 2 Hemlal Singh respectively have died during pendency of this appeal, as such this appeal is being pressed only on behalf of appellant nos.3, 5 ,7 & 8. In view of the report as annexed with the record, the instant appeal is dismissed as abated against appellant nos.1, 2, 4 & 6, namely, Mulidhar Singh, Ishwari Prasad Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh and Hemlal Singh and is being heard for the rest surviving appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions:- (i) The witnesses P.W. 1-5 have been examined by the prosecution are interested and related witnesses therefore the judgment of trial court based on these evidence is fit to be set aside. (ii) The court below has not properly considered the fact that there is case and counter case due to land dispute. (iii) As per doctor who conducted postmortem has opined that the cause of death is to be due to shock and haemorrhage. After the aforesaid contention he further made an alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1983 and the appellants have suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly modify the sentence for the period already undergone as the surviving appellants are aged and middle aged persons and appellant no.3 remained in custody for about 472 days and appellant Nos.5, 7 & 8 also remained in custody for about 382 days. Further the surviving appellants does not have any criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedents of the surviving appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine. 6. 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 3 circumstances of the case and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have considerably proved the case of the prosecution and the findings of the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained. 7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to sentence awarded to them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice since the case has been registered due to land dispute and appellant no.3 remained in custody for about 472 days and appellant Nos.5, 7 & 8 remained in custody for about 382 days. 8. Thus, on point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 1983 and about 40 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellants were in jail for a considerable period and they have never misused the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any criminal activities; thus, they have a chance to reform. 9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the surviving appellants shall be released for the period already undergone. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the surviving appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.25000/- each except appellant No.3- Shobha Singh as he is aged about 90 years. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the surviving appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone 4 subject to payment of fine of Rs.25000/- each except appellant No.3-Shobha Singh. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.25000/- each within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Giridih; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. 10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
Decision
stands disposed of. 11. The appellant no.3 shall be discharged from the liability of her bail bonds, however appellant nos.5, 7 and 8 shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, DLSA Giridih and also to the appellants and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. Fahim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)