1. Tyophil Kindo @ Tyophil Kuzur Son of Late Joseph Kindo 2. Pradeep Lakra v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 1. Tyophil Kindo @ Tyophil Kuzur Son of Late Joseph Kindo 2. Pradeep Lakra Son of Jakhrius Lakra 3. Anup Kuzur Son of Hilarius Kuzur 4. Santosh Kuzur Son of Hilarius Kuzur 5. Habil Kindo Son of late Alphons Kindo 6. Subodh Kindo Son of Tyophil Kindo All are resident of Village Gamhar Toli, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Adv. : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 23.10.2024 By Court:- Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2006 and 04.12.2006 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.231 of 2005 by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 1 and whereunder appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. 3. The prosecution case is based on fardbeyan of one Ajit Kindo (informant) stating inter alia that on the night of 10.06.2005, accused persons forming unlawful assembly armed with weapons attacked his aunt, Sushila Xess, and others. When the informant intervened, he and his relatives including his sister and cousin, were also assaulted. It is further alleged that the motive behind the attack was that the accused were suspecting Sushila Xess, aunt of the informant and her husband Joseph Xess were practicing witchcraft. The Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 2 accused persons were intending to kill the informant and his relatives. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Raidih P.S. Case No.31 of 2005 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.231 of 2005 was registered. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced: Exhibit 1 to 1/2 : Injury reports Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan of the informant Ajit Kindo. Exhibit 3 : First Information Report Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 3 7. The defence has also examined two witnesses namely D.W.-1 Lewokar Lakra and D.W.-2 Kristophar Ekka. 8. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point that appellants were held guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act, 1999 and maximum sentence is awarded three years for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. It was appellants' first offence and the dispute and scuffle arose between the parties in a sudden manner. The appellants have not been extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of offenders Act, 1958 for which no special reasons has been recorded by the learned Trial Court. 10. On the above point, learned Spl. P.P. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee has raised no serious objection against the extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 4 11. In the given facts and circumstances of this case and nature of injury sustained by informant party, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty for calling simple DAAIN and house trespass etc. as a major offence. It further appears that admittedly, there is no material showing any previous conviction of the appellants for any offences and it was their first offence. Therefore, appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to release the appellants on furnishing probation bond. The appellants are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment. The learned trial court shall call upon a report from District Probation Officer and instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment release the appellants upon furnishing the bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for one year from the date of furnishing bond to the satisfaction of concerned Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 5 Trial Court. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the sentences awarded to them.
Decision
13. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin Cr.A(SJ) No.1672 of 2006 Page | 6