The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1657 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 26.08.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6th, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 489 of 2002) 1. Rajan Gayali 2. Anath Gayali 3. Meera Devi The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellants ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants For the Resp.-State --------- : Mr. Radhey Shyam, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP 10/ 02.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. -------- 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 26.08.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6th, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 489 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, RI for three years under Section 498A of the IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, further imprisonment for six months and also RI for two years under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, further imprisonment for six months and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the daughter (now deceased) of the informant was killed by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. appellant Nos.1, 2 & 3, respectively, due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has considered the entire evidence on record merely on illusory ground. The order of the conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. He further submits that there are contradictory statements in the deposition of the prosecution case. The medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation levelled in the FIR. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the 2 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 appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are aged about 55, 65 and 57 years, respectively and the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 remained in custody for about 2 years, 5 months and 22 days, 2 years, 5 months and 18 days & 1 year, 4 months and 10 days, respectively and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedents. Further, learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the appellant No.2 is service holder as such, some leniency may be granted to him by modifying the sentence so that he can get the service benefit. 5. 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 antecedent of the appellants; 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; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained. 7. So far as contention of the petitioner with respect to appellant No.2 that he is a service holder, some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence and releasing him under Probation of Offender Act, since the nature of offence and the fact of the case is grievous, as such this Court is not interested in granting probation to the appellant No.2 under Probation of Offenders Act. 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 since no motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and admittedly the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 remained in custody for about 2 3 years, 5 months and 22 days, 2 years, 5 months and 18 days & 1 year, 4 months and 10 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 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 be modified to the extent that the appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- each looking to the nature of offence. 11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- each. 12. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/- each, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Dhanbad; failing which they 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 appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad and also to the appellants 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.)