Raj Kishore Mondal The State of Jharkhand v. With
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 963 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2003) Raj Kishore Mondal The State of Jharkhand Versus With ….. Appellant ….. Respondent Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1783 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2003) Sanjay Turi The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellant ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants --------- : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate (in Cr. Appeal 963/2004) Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate (in Cr. Appeal 1783/2004) For the Resp.-State : Ms. Niki Sinha, APP (in Cr. Appeal 963/2004) Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP (in Cr. Appeal 1783/2004) -------- 07/ 17.05.2023 Both appeals arise out of common judgment and are interconnected, as such same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2003, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.12.2001 while the officer-in-charge and other police personnel of Mihizam police Station were on patrolling duty received an information that dacoity has been committed in the house of Ayodhyalal and Kartik Tiwari then the police 2 officials came to the place of occurrence and the appellant and other co- accused caught hold by the police personnel and seizure list was prepared. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law as no independent witness has identified the appellant. He further submits that seizure list is doubtful in view of the fact that the seizure list witnesses did not know as to how many paper they have put signature and further they have put their signature in the police station. He further submits that the report of the FSL, Ranchi should not have been relied upon because the informant has himself deposed that the recovered powder was not sealed immediately. Further the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the provision of law as laid down under Sections 3 of the Explosive Act and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. 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 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 middle aged persons and the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 963 of 2004 remained in custody for about 4 years, 8 months and 14 days and appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004 remained in custody for about 3 years, 1 month and 29 days and they never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellants are 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 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. 3 7. 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 in Cr. Appeal No. 963 of 2004 remained in custody for about 4 years, 8 months and 14 days and appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004 remained in custody for about 3 years, 1 month and 29 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 2001 and about 22 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. 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 in Cr. Appeal No. 963 of 2004 shall be released for the period already undergone. However, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004 shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. 10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 963 of 2004 is sentenced for the period already undergone; however, the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004 is sentenced for the period already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. 11. It is made clear that the appellant-Sanjay Turi (in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004) shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the D.L.S.A., Jamtara; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. 12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
Decision
sentence only, both criminal appeals stand disposed of. 13. The appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 963 of 2004 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond and appellant in Cr. Appeal 4 No. 1783 of 2004 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to the fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara and also to the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1783 of 2004 through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Pramanik/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)