…. 1. Rajendra Rajak son of Sukhdev Rajak, 2. Kartik Rajak, 3. Prabhakar Rajak v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.622 of 2005 …. 1. Rajendra Rajak son of Sukhdev Rajak, 2. Kartik Rajak, 3. Prabhakar Rajak, 4. Beeru Rajak, All three son of Badri Rajak 5. Badri Rajak son of Late Tezu Rajak, 6. Sukhdeo Rajak son of Late Tezu Rajak, All resident of village Jamua, P.S. Jamtara, District-Jamtara. ……Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP …… ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT Order No.07 /20.12.2024 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Rajendra Rajak, Kartik Rajak, Prabhakar Rajak, Beeru Rajak, Badri Rajak and Sukhdeo Rajak challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.05.2005 passed in Session Case No.22/04/46/2004 by Sri Indra Deo Mishra, 2nd Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court Jamtara whereby and whereunder all the appellants have found convicted for the offences u/s 341/34 of I.P.C and 323/34 and 504/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the informant Kamdev Rajak gave his fard-beyan on 27.02.2003 at about 12 pm in the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara on bed no.3 to A.S.I. Ramasis Singh that on 26.06.2003 at about 4:30 pm, she goat of Badri Rajak entered into his wheat and vegetables field and when 1 his daughter Rani Kumari aged about 12 years went to the house of Badri Rajak and told that his she goat is regularly grazing the wheat and vegetables. In the meantime, Badri Rajak, Beeru Rajak abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, Badri Rajak caught his collar and Kartik Rajak assaulted him with danta in the meantime accused Sukhdev Raja, Beeru Rajak, Rajendra Rajak and Prabhar. Rajak came there and also started abusing him and they have also assaulted him with slaps and fists. On halla villagers came and then they were fled away. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he is not pressing this appeal on merit rather he is only argued on the point of sentence. 5. It is submitted that occurrence had taken place on 2003 and more than 21 years have passed and lenient view may be taken in favour of the appellants. 6. 7. Learned A.P.P raised no objection. Perused the lower Court records and considered the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for both the sides. 8. It transpires that the informant had lodged the F.I.R against the appellants on 27.02.2003 under Section 341/323/307/34 of I.P.C against the appellants. 9. It transpires that the police after investigation submitted the chragesheet against the appellants on 29.03.2003 under Section 341/323/307/34 of IPC before the learned C.J.M Jamtara. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M. Jamtara had taken cognizance on 29.03.2003 against the appellants under Sections 341/323/307/34. 10. Thereafter supplying the police papers to the accused 2 persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 11. During Trial of the prosecution got examined six (6) witnesses in support of its case, who are as follows:- (i) PW-1 is Rani Kumari, (ii) PW-2 is Kamdeo Rajak (i.e. the Informant), (iii) PW-3 is Dukhan Rajak, (iv) PW-4 is Ramashish Singh, (i.e. I.O) (v) PW-5 is Thanda Devi, (vi) PW-6 Dr. A. Sattar, (i.e. Medical Officer) 12. The prosecution documents in support of its case marked as following Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Ext.1 is the Signature of Kamdeo Rajak on fardbeyan, (ii) Ext.2 is the entire written Statement, (iii) Ext.3 is the Injury letter of Thanda Devi, (iv) Ext.3/1 is the Injury letter of Kamdeo Rajak, (v) Ext.4 is the formal F.I.R, (vi) Ext.5 is the Injury report of Thanda Devi, (vii) Ext.5/1 is the Injury report of Kamdeo Rajak. 13. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 08.02.2005 before the learned Court below and to which the appellants had denied the circumstances put forth before them. 14. The Defence in support of their case got examined two witnesses who are as follows:- (i) DW-1 is Paresh Bauri, Advocate Clerk (ii) DW-2 is Dr. Sudarshan Kumar Gutgutia. 15. The Defence prosecution in support its case got proved following documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:- 3 (i) Ext.A is the FIR in SC No. 61/03/41/04, (ii) Ext.B is the Fardbeyan in SC 61/03/41/04, (iii) Ext.C is the Injury report of Sukhdeo Rajak SC No.61/03/41/04, (iv) Ext.C/1 is the Injury report of Rajendra Rajak in SC 61/03/41/04, (v) Ext.D is the C/C of Charge sheet of SC 61/03/41/04, (vi) Ext.E is the Injury report of Rajendra Rajak, (vii) Ext.E/1 is the Injury report of Sukhdeo Rajak. 16. Thereafter, the learned Court below, after considering the case of both the sides, has convicted the appellants as mentioned above and sentenced them on difference grounds as mentioned above. 17. It appears that occurrence took place in the year 2003 and more than twenty one (21) years have passed, and the appellants have undergone the mental agony of long protracted trial and hence, they can be given Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 18. Under circumstances, mentioned above in view of the fact and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that appellants have faced long protracted trial for more than 21 years. 19. It appears that the appellant are facing trial for more than 21 years and hence, they can be granted relief under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 20. Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, which is as follows:- “4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct:- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed 4 an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.” 21. Considering the rigors of trial and also long protracted trial for more than 21 years and also considering that both the side are neighbours, hence, the appellants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing probation bonds of Rs. 2000/- each for the period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act. However, the appellants are directed to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, they must keep the peace and be of good behaviour of the said period. 22. Thus, this Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2005 is allowed in part. 23. Let the Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once by the Office. Nishant/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 5