) ------- 1. Gopal Mardi 2. Sidho Soren @ Ram Singh Soren 3. Maan v. CORAM
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1195 of 2003 --------- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC- V, Jamshedpur corresponding to S.T. No.190 of 1997.) ------- 1. Gopal Mardi 2. Sidho Soren @ Ram Singh Soren 3. Maan Singh Soren 4. Ramchandra Murmu @ Champai Soren 5. Moso Mardi @ Moso Hansda 6. Salkhu Mardi 7. Ramesh Murmu ….. …. Appellants The State of Jharkhand. ….. …. Respondent Versus CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent-State :Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P For the informant ------- :Mr. Asutosh Mishra, Adv. : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv. ……… 17/09.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC- V, Jamshedpur corresponding to S.T. No.190 of 1997, whereby the appellants Gopal Mardi and Moso Mardi are found guilty u/s 324 read with 149 IPC whereas Ram Singh Soren found guilty u/s325 read with 149 IPC and the all the appellants are found guilty u/s 148 and 447 of the IPC, however Maan Singh Soren is also found guilty u/s 27 of the Arms Act and all the appellants sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one years u/S 148 IPC, appellants Gopal Mardi and Moso Mardi sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years u/S 324/149 and appellant Maan Singh sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years u/S 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for three months. No separate sentence is passed u/S 447 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 4.11.1996 in the morning, when the informant along with his brothers and labourers were harvesting paddy crop, the accused persons/appellants came there armed with deadly weapon and 2 appellant Maan Singh armed with pistol and surrounded the paddy field and started shooting arrow by abusing them. Thereafter all the accused persons started assaulting them with an intention to kill them. 4. At the outset learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per report appellant No.4-Ramchandra Murmu @ Champai Soren died during pendency of the appeal and this appeal is being pressed for rest of the appellants. In view of the aforesaid submission/report the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as abated against appellant No.4-Ramchandra Murmu @ Champai Soren. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions:- (i) The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. (ii) The place of occurrence has not been established in this case as the I.O has not been examined which is seriously prejudiced the appellants. (iii) The learned court below failed to take into consideration that several documents filed by the appellants in support of their contention that the lands belongs to them and they had grown crops over the land in question. After the aforesaid submission, he further made an alternative argument that the incident is of the year 1996 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 the appellants are middle age and aged persons and they also remained in custody for few days. 5. During course of hearing learned APP field criminal antecedent report of the appellants which shows that except appellant no.1-Gopal Mardi who is having one criminal case regarding to 47 A Excise Act, however no other appellants have any criminal antecedent. Further learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant; as such, if 3 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 learned 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 surviving 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 the place of occurrence has not been established as the I.O has not been examined and admittedly the surviving appellants remained in custody for few 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 1996 and about 27 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellants have also remained in jail for few days and they have 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 surviving appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each except appellant No.3- Mann Singh Soren who will pay 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 surviving appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each and Rs.25000/- (for appellant No.3-Mann Singh Soren) . 4 It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine amount within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Jamshedpur Singhbhum East; failing which they 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
Decision
stands disposed of. 11. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, DLSA Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum and also to the appellants and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. Fahim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)