Tinku Mandal v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1276 of 2004 --------- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 20.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Deoghar, corresponding to S.T. No. 238 of 2002) --------- 1.Muso Mandal. 2.Pinku Mandal @ Tinku Mandal. Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..… Appellants ...... Respondent With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1297 of 2004 --------- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Deoghar, corresponding to S.T. No. 238 of 2002) --------- 1. Mangru Mandal. 2. Suren mandal @ Surendra Mandal 3. Basuki Mandal 4. Anil Mandal 5. Prahlad Mandal 6. Gangaram Mandal 7. Shibu Mandal Versus ..… Appellants The State of Jharkhand.
Legal Reasoning
--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ..... Respondent --------- For the Appellants : Mr. RCP Sah, Adv (in Cr. Appeal. No. 1276/04) Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Adv (in Cr. Appeal. No. 1297 of 04) For the Respondents : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP --------- 06/Dated: 13th June, 2023 Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both these criminal appeals arise out of same judgment passed by the trial court, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both these criminal appeal have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Deoghar, corresponding to S.T. No. 238 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to go R.I. for 3 years under section 148/ 149, 379/149 IPC and 1 years R.I. for offence under section 448/149, 323/149 IPC and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2 6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.11.2001 the informant had stated that appellants alongwith 18 named accused persons and other 8 unknown person assembled at Dayal Garden where the construction work was going on and they assaulted them with their arms and they took away Sneh Singh on the motor cycle driven by Mangru Mandal and Shibu Mandal. They also snatched the money and taken away the new Hero Honda Motor Cycle of Sneh Singh including some Electric Motor and pipe. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the witnesses have been declared hostile. So far as P.W.6, and 7 is concern, they have also not stated the fact that the appellants have either assaulted any and/or have taken away any things. He further submits that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants due to lack of evidence and they may be acquitted. 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 (in Cr. Appeal No. 1276 of 2004) is middle aged person and appellants (in Cr. Appeal No. 1297 of 2004) are middle aged persons and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedents. Further appellant Nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr. Appeal No. 1276 of 2004) remained in custody for about 43 days and few days, respectively and appellant Nos. 1 to 7 (in Cr. Appeal No. 1297 of 2004) also remained in custody for 101, 57, 110, 98, 13, 104 and 98 days respectively. 8. 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. 9. 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 3 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. 10. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellants with regard 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 and 2 (in Cr. Appeal No. 1276 of 2004) remained in custody for about 43 days and few days, respectively and appellant Nos. 1 to 7 (in Cr. Appeal No. 1297 of 2004) also remained in custody for 101, 57, 110, 98, 13, 104 and 98 days respectively. 11. 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 surviving 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. 12. 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 appellants (in Cr. Appeal. No. 1276 of 2004) shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Further the appellants (in Cr. Appeal. No. 1297 of 2004) shall be released for the period undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 13. 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. 1276 of 2004 and surviving appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1297 of 2004 is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 14. It is made clear that the appellants (in both the cases) shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, respectively within a period of 4 months from date of receipt of the order, before the D.L.S.A., Deoghar; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial 4 court. 15. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
Decision
sentence only, both these criminal appeals stand disposed of. 16. The appellants (in both the cases) shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Deoghar and also to the appellants (in both the cases) through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 18. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Amardeep/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)