) ------- Guddu Singh ….. … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1775 of 2003 --------- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 29.11.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC -3rd, Bokaro corresponding to S.T. No.238 of 1998.) ------- Guddu Singh ….. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. …. Respondent CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant :Mr. Avilash Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent-State :Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P ……… 08/16.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 29.11.2003, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC -3rd, Bokaro corresponding to S.T. No.238 of 1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 353, 323, 341, 392 & 411 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years u/S 392 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.2000/-. Further sentenced to R.I. for a period of one year u/S 353 IPC and R.I. for a period of one year u/S 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine further to undergo R.I. for six months, however all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The brief fact of the case is that while the informant who was Enforcement Officer was on duty and in course of checking he found that vehicle no.BHH/8205 was plying without valid permit. He also suspected of about loading limit and therefore directed Home Guard to get weight and parked the said truck at Balidi police station. The vehicle belongs to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant along with some other persons surrounded the informant and started assaulting him and prevented him from discharging his official duties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made the following submissions:- (i) The appellant never stopped the informant and his associates nor assaulted them. It is not believable that certain persons will stop the police personnel in the main town and will 2 have that much of courage to stop and assault the police party which is being headed by Dy.S.P i.e. the informant. Moreover there is no allegation that the appellant was armed with any weapon and though there is allegation on him of assault upon the informant’s head with a rod but the same is not supported by the doctor. (ii) No independent witness has been examined in this case and the witnesses examined are police witnesses. (iii) As per the allegation informant was assaulted by a rod on his head but the doctor who examined him found simple injury on his head which goes to show that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. After the aforesaid submission, he further made an alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1998 and the appellant has suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly at least modify the sentence for the period already undergone as the appellant is middle aged person and he also remained in custody for 160 days. 5. Learned counsel for the State produced criminal antecedent report of the appellant today itself. Office is directed to tag the same with the record. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant. Further, he fairly submits that as per record, there is only one more criminal case against the appellant and sure last ten years his behaviour was found satisfactorily; 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 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 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 appellant with respect to sentence awarded to him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellant 3 to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice and admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 160 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 1998 and about 25 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant has also remained in jail for about 60 days and he has never misused the privilege of bail. 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 appellant shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.25,000/- within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Bokaro; failing which he 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 stands
Decision
disposed of. 11. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, DLSA Bokaro and also to the appellant through the concerned police station and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. Fahim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)