Dilip Soren v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 (Against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2004, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 955 of 2003, passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Dumka) 1. Joba Soren 2. Dilip Soren Versus The State of Jharkhand --- … Appellants … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants For the State --- : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Amicus Curiae : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. Dated: 27th August, 2024 Judgement This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2005, passed in Sessions Case No.26 of 2004, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 955 of 2003, passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C) at Dumka whereby and whereunder the aforesaid appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and they were further directed to serve the sentence as under:- The original appellants of this Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 appellant No.1 Joba Soren is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, whereas appellant No.2- Belai Soren (since deceased) and appellant No.3 Dilip Soren were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-each and further imprisonment for two years in case of default of payment of fine. 2. At the outset, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has pointed out that he has received the report from the concerned Inspector of Police-cum-Officer In-charge, Shikaripara, Dumka informing therein that the original appellant No.2 Belai Soren has died on 10.07.2014 and 1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 appellant No.1 Joba Soren and appellant No.3 Dilip Soren are alive and a letter to that effect has also been received by the Assistant Registrar of this
Legal Reasoning
High Court from the Superintendent of Police, Dumka, which is available on record by which the relevant information regarding status of the appellants has been furnished that appellant No.2 has died and appellant No.1 & appellant No.3 are alive and in this view of matter, the learned APP submitted that let this appeal be abated with respect to the appellant No.2 Belai Soren. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that since appellant No.2 has died as per the report received from the concerned authority, let this appeal be abated with respect to appellant No.2 as no close or near relative has come forward to pursue this appeal on behalf of deceased appellant No.2, accordingly this appeal gets abated with respect to the appellant No.2 Belai Soren and now this appeal is to be heard on behalf of the appellant No.1 Joba Soren and Dilip Soren who is re-numbered as Appellant No.2. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the Fardbeyan of Samu Hansda (informant) PW-6 is as under :- (a) PW-6 Samu Hansda (informant) stated that he was married with the accused-Joba Soren (Appellant No.1) 12 years back who was the resident of the same village and one daughter and two sons were born out of the said wedlock but his wife (appellant Joba Soren) had been alleging consistently since last two months that the informant was having illicit relationship with another girl and therefore there had been some dispute between him and his wife- appellant no.1. (b) On 17.09.2003 at about 8 ‘O’ Clock at night, he was returning home after attending Vishkarma-puja and in such course when he reached between his house and in his nuptial house then saw that his wife was standing in the street. She asked where he had gone? He replied that he had gone to see Vishkarma-puja but his wife said that he had gone to another girl. His wife (Accused-Joba Soren) caught him and called her brothers accused-Belai Soren and accused Dilip Soren and with their assistance threw him on the earth and accused Joba Soren started cutting his penis 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 with knife with an intention to kill. He objected to it upon which Belai Soren and Dilip Soren caught him with force. The informant started shouting, then his mother, father and co-villager reached, upon which they (assailants) entered their house. The informant sustained injury on his penis and started bleeding. A Panchayti was held in the village but the accused persons did not appear then he came to the police station and lodged information and that is the reason for delay in coming to police Station. 5. The Officer-In-Charge, Shikaripara registered the aforesaid fardbeyan as Shikaripara P.S. Case No.66 of 2003 for offence under Section 341/342/324/307/34 IPC and endorsed the investigation to A.S.I. Baset Marandi. 6. Police after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341/342/324/307/34 IPC against all the three accused persons named at the out set of this judgment vide charge-sheet No.80/03 dated 31.10.2003. 7. The C.J.M., Dumka on receipt of the charge-sheet took cognizance for offence under Sections 341/324/307/34 IPC., dated 02.12.2003. Thereafter, police paper was to the accused persons and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 06.01.2004. 8. The Sessions Judge, Dumka on receipt of the record upon commitment registered as Sessions Case No.26 of 2004 and made over the case to 6th Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka vide order-sheet dated 10.01.2004 thereafter this case has been transferred to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law vide order-sheet dated 20.03.2004. 9. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Dumka framed charge for offence under Section 307/34 IPC against all the accused persons on 12.02.2004 and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. The learned trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. 11. Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned APP appearing on behalf 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 of the State. 12. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that both the parties, the appellants and the informant are related to each other as appellant No.1 Joba Soren is the wife of the informant-PW-6 and appellant No.2 Dilip Soren is brother-in-law (Sala) of the PW-6 Samu Hansda. In this view of the matter, it is fairly submitted on behalf of the appellants that he does not want to go into the merit of the appeal and he has confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. It has been pointed out that by virtue of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant No.1 & 2 have been found guilty and both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and appellant No.1 has been sentenced for life imprisonment whereas appellant No.2 Dilip Soren was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and further a sum of Rs.2000/- was imposed as fine and in case of default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for two years. 13. It has further been pointed out that basically it was a quarrel between the husband and wife under which the wife appellant No.1 was having grudge from the injured husband PW-6 that he was having illicit relationship with another girl and out of anguish she alleged to have assaulted her husband PW-6 with the help of her brothers appellant No.2- Dilip Soren and Belai Soren (since deceased). Further, it has been submitted that this occurrence is said to have taken place as far back as in the year 2003 and both the appellants have already remained in jail for more than three years. Further, it has also been pointed that a Panchayati was convened in order to resolve the dispute but unfortunately the same could not be materialised. 14. Further, it has also been submitted that this F.I.R. has been instituted after the lapse of three days and no cogent reason has been assigned except that both the parties were trying to resolve the dispute in the Panchayat which is an admitted fact in view of the relationship between the victim PW-6 and appellant No.1 who are husband and wife. Further, both the appellants have been suffering the rigor and trauma of the criminal 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 prosecution for a long period of time after serving the reasonable period of sentence of imprisonment of about 3 years also and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in modifying the order of sentence. 15. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that it is a very heinous assault alleged to have been committed by appellant No.1 who being the wife has assaulted her husband PW-6 ruthlessly on the private part of the husband-PW-6 and therefore she does not deserve to get a lenient view in the award of sentence. Further, it has also been pointed out that just after the incident a Panchayati was also convened but the appellants did not participate in the Panchayati and the matter could not be resolved but the learned APP did not controvert this fact that the relationship between the injured and the appellants are husband and wife and brother-in-law respectively and they have also served the sentence for more than three years and it is a family dispute and therefore an appropriate order on the point of sentence may be passed after upholding the conviction for both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. 16. Having heard both the parties, perused the record of this case. 17. It is found that both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and the appellant No.1 Joba Soren has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, whereas appellant No.2- Dilip Soren has also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and further directed to imprisonment for two years in case of default of payment of fine. 18. Since the appellants don’t want to argue this case on merit and therefore this Court upholds the judgment of conviction passed under Section 307 of the IPC by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2004, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 955 of 2003. 19. So far as sentence is concerned, it is found that the appellant No.1 is 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 the wife of the injured PW-6 and appellant No.2 is the Sala (brother-in-law) of the PW-6. As a matter of fact which is an admitted case of the prosecution that it is a matrimonial dispute under which the appellant No.1 was under apprehension that her husband PW-6 was having illicit relationship with another girl and there had been a dispute between both the parties since last two months due to suspected illicit relationship and therefore, the appellant No.1 along with her brothers appellant No.2 and one deceased appellant Belai Soren had assaulted upon the injured PW-6. Further, it is found from the record that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants have any criminal history. Further, it is also apparent from the record that both the appellants have remained in jail and served the sentence of imprisonment in this case for more than 3 years and the incident has taken place as far back as in the year 2003 about 21 years back and over a period of time, both the appellants have been suffering the hardships and miseries of the criminal prosecution for such a long period. Further, although it is not on record, but it is found that the occurrence took place because of the matrimonial dispute between the parties due to apprehension of the appellant No.1 Joba Soren about illicit relationship of her husband (PW-6) with another girl and hence under these circumstances of the case, it is found that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence. It is manifest from the record since both the appellants have already served the sentence of imprisonment for more than three years and therefore, the purpose of justice should be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by them by altering the impugned order of sentence. 20. In the result the order of sentence dated 20.06.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2004, arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 955 of 2003 against the appellants is hereby altered and modified with a direction that both the appellants i.e. Joba Soren and Dilip Soren are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by them. 21. As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above. 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005 22. The appellants are on bail and therefore they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds in this case. 23. Learned counsel, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, appearing on behalf of the appellants as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court is entitled for the remuneration of Rs.5500/- per date of appearance from the High Court Legal Services Authority, Committee as per the rules and regulations. 24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi to do the needful for payment of Amicus Curiae as per the rules and regulations. 25. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also transmitted to the concerned learned trial Court. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Basant/S.Das Dated 27th August, 2024 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1357 of 2005