Likhender Kumar Mahto The State of Jharkhand v. With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 387 of 2005 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2005 and the order of sentence dated 28.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 150 of 2003) Likhender Kumar Mahto The State of Jharkhand Versus With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005 Ranjit Kumar The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellant ….. Respondent ….. Appellant ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants --------- : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. P.K. Appu, APP Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP -------- 08/ 17.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and are interconnected, as such both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2005 and the order of sentence dated 28.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 150 of 2003, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months’ imprisonment. However, the period undergone during trial shall be set off from their punishment. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.03.2002, while the informant was going to attend the marriage by Maruti van then on the way the appellants and 10-12 other accused persons armed with revolver stopped his Maruti and demanded articles and cash. The appellants also stopped the bus of barat party and snatched yasica camera, wrist watch and cash from them and snatched Rs.10,000/- from the barat party. It is also alleged that the miscreants have also looted motorcycle and fled away. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned 2 judgment is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the order is based on only surmises and conjecture. He further submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2002 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, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as appellants are aged/middle aged persons, and the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 387 of 2005 remained in custody for about three years eleven months and 20 days and the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 313 of 2005 also remained in custody for about two months and 16 days and they never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedents. 6. 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 appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine. 7. 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; 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 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 and admittedly the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 387 of 2005 remained in custody for about three years eleven months and 20 days and the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 313 of 2005 remained in custody for about two months and 16 days, respectively. 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 3 place in the year 2002 and about 21 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. 10. 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 of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 387 of 2005 shall be released for the period already undergone; however, appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005 shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. 11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 387 of 2005 sentenced for the period already undergone. However, appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005 is also sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. 12. It is made clear that the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005 shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the D.L.S.A., Hazaribagh; 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 of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 387 of 2005 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. However, appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005, 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, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Hazaribagh and also to the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 313 of 2005 through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Pramanik/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)