The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1124 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 03.06.2004, passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2003) Ravan Gorai The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellant ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Resp.-State --------- : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP -------- 05/ 30.06.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 03.06.2004, passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2003, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof further to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 417 of the IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.12.2001 at 8.00 P.M. appellant forcefully took the victim Lali Kumari in the backyard of her house and committed rape on her by putting scarf on her mouth. It is alleged that the appellant also threatened her with life if she disclosed the matter to her family members. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the occurrence took place on 04.12.2001 whereas the same was reported on 01.08.2003 which castes serious doubts upon the entire case of prosecution. He further submits that out of 7 prosecution witnesses 4 witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that not a single defence witness has been examined causing serious prejudice to the defence case. He further submits that there are contradiction in the statements of the victim that the consent of the victim is clearly made out and the case was of love affair and free consent. 2 Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2001 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 appellant is middle aged person and he remained in custody for about two years and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellant; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine. 6. It appears from record that during the pendency of the case a permission was also sought by the accused to marry the victim girl in the court. This permission was duly granted. But unfortunately the case took a tragic turn when the victim girl and her baby child died which has been informed by P.W-5. The learned trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances has held that when the consented sexual intercourse took place on the promise of marriage and during the pendency of the case the accused agree to marry the girl and also taking into account the age and the antecedent of the accused he was of the view that a lenient view can be taken on the part of sentence. 7. 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; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained. 8. 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 to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice since no motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about two years. 3 9. 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 2001 and about 22 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform. 10. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought 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/-. 11. 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/-. 12. 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 copy of this order, before the learned trial court who in turn shall pay the aforesaid fine amount to the mother/close blood relative of the victim; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. 13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
Decision
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. 14. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court and also to the appellant through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 16. forthwith. Pramanik/ Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned (Deepak Roshan, J.)