The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 877 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 15.04.2004, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC- 9, Ranchi, in Session Trial No. 195 of 2000) Bhagat Mahto Ranglal Mahto With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 817 of 2004 The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellant ….. Appellant ….. Respondent (In both cases)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants For the Resp.-State --------- : Ms. Sharon Kerketta, Amicus : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP -------- 13/ 14.06.2023 Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and
Decision
are interconnected, as such same are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 15.04.2004, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-9, Ranchi, in Session Trial No. 195 of 2000, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.817 of 2004- Bhagat Mahto was further sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 27 (i) of the Arms Act and both the sentences awarded to Bhagat Mahto were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.09.1999 while the informant went to his sasural along with his wife, at 3 A.M., the appellants knocked the door and fired the pistol upon which informant sustained injury on left elbow and blood started oozing out and he fell down. It has been alleged that on the very same day some altercation had taken place in between the parties. 4. Learned amicus for the appellants submits that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that all the independent witnesses examined in the present case have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He further submits that PWs. 2 1, 4, 5 and 7 are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that no empty cartridge or pellets and blood stained soil was recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned amicus, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1999 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 in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 and Cr. Appeal No. 817 of 2004 are aged about 47 and 79 years, respectively and appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 and Cr. Appeal No. 817 of 2004 are remained in custody for about 342 days and 194 days, respectively 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 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. 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. 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 appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 and Cr. Appeal No. 817 of 2004, remained in custody for about 342 days and 194 days, respectively. 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 3 place in the year 1999 and about 24 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. 817 of 2004, who is now aged about 79 years shall be released for the period already undergone; however, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. 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. 817 of 2004 is sentenced for the period already undergone, however, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. 11. It is made clear that the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004, namely, Bhagat Mahto shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.50,000/-, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Ranchi; 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 sentence only, both these criminal appeals stand disposed of. 13. The appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 817 of 2004 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond; however, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 877 of 2004 shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 14. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse Ms. Sharon Kerketta, learned Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case @ Rs.5000/- per hearing subject to the maximum ceiling as per the applicable Notification. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Ranchi, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal 4 Services Committee and also to the appellants in both the cases 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.)