Ghulab Chand Rai, S/o Late Makar Chanda Rai, R/o village-Kdampur, P.S. … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pawan Kumar Rai, S/o Belbadra Rai, R/o-village, Kadompur
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 Ghulab Chand Rai, S/o Late Makar Chanda Rai, R/o village-Kdampur, P.S. …… Petitioner Jama, District-Dumka Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pawan Kumar Rai, S/o Belbadra Rai, R/o-village, Kadompur P.O.+P.S.- Jama District-Dumka ……Opposite Parties For the Petitioner For the State ….. : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Shamid Raza, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P ---------- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA PRESENT ----- JUDGMENT C.A.V.On 03.05.2024 Pronounced On: 15 .05.2024 1. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under sections 341, 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code passed by learned Trial Court has been confirmed. 2. The prosecution story as depicted in the FIR is that on 27.12.2009 at about 5 pm, the informant had gone to purchase soda from the shop Nemulal where the co-accused Gulab Chandra Rai (Petitionier) met him and told him to spend some money as he has come from Bengal after earning but the informant avoided saying that he will provide Kharcha Paani later on. It is further alleged that the present petitioner caught hold the informant and started abusing him but anyhow he saved himself and went to the house of his father-in-law. After sometime, the present petitioner again came to the house of his father-in-law and started abusing him in filthy language and 2 Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 when he came out of the house, then present petitioner assaulted him by rod blows causing grievous injuries on mouth and chest and fled away. On the basis of above information, Jama P.S. Case No.03 of 2010 dated 06.01.2010 was registered for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and accordingly after cognizance, charge was framed. Petitioner denied the charges and sent for trial and after conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court, which was raised in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2013, the appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, which has been assailed in this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below and submitted that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have failed to apprise and appreciate that petitioner that the informant are close relatives and due to sudden scuffle and dispute between the parties, there was exchange of blows by fist and fats and no weapon was used. There is no whisper in Ext.1- the injury report of the injured-informant about the nature of the weapon which was used in causing injuries. No X-ray report was brought on record and the P.W.4 Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma who has examined the injured has specifically admitted that the injuries sustained by the informant may be caused due to fall on hard surface. The place of occurrence is also described by the Investigating Officer of the case (PW.5) at the Dhanu Kachi Raod situated near the house of the father-in-law of the informant. 4. There was no motive or any pre-plan on the part of the petitioner to cause any injury to the informant in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3 Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 5. It was first offence of the petitioner; he has no criminal background and was never convicted for any offence and he has been awarded excessive sentence for R.I. imprisonment of one year. 6. Learned both courts below without recording any special reasons have declined to extend the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner, who has also undergone the imprisonment for a period of two months during the trial and pendency of the appeal. Therefore, in the alternative, petitioner may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 27.12.2009 but the FIR was lodged on 06.01.2010 without offering any reasonable explanation of such in ordinate delay which also casts doubt on the prosecution. 8. On the other hand, in spite of valid service of notice, the informant/opposite party No.2 did not turn up to contest this case and learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that in the course of scuffle and assault by the petitioner, three teeth were broken off the injured-informant and he also sustained injuries on chest. Therefore, considering the nature of gravity of offence, petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence and he has been adequately punished. There is no valid ground for interference in the impugned judgment and order, which is fit to be upheld and confirmed. Accordingly, this revision being devoid on merits is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case genesis and manner of occurrence and the injuries sustained by the injured- informant of this case as proved by Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma (PW-4) to be 4 Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 grievous in nature, in as much as his three teeth were broken and other simple injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. No previous enmity of any kind between the parties has brought on record. It is also obvious that there is no previous conviction of the petitioner rather it was his first offence. Both courts below have not recorded any findings that all the doors of the reformation of the petitioner in the light have been for closed and deterrent punishment is imperative in this case to meet the ends of justice rather there is simple reason in the impugn judgment that offence is serous in nature, hence, the court does not incline to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict/petitioner. 10. It is also obvious that on the date of occurrence, petitioner was aged about 50 years and now he is more than 60 years and he also undergone more than 2 months custody period during trial of the case having no criminal backgrounds or previous conviction. 11. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, having regard to genesis and manner of occurrence, the age, antecedent and character of the convict/petitioner and also the nature of offence alleged to be committed by him, it appears that it is in expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of provision under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner in instead of awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment as inflicted by the learned trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 12. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within 3 months from the date of this order and he shall be directed by the trial court to execute the bond with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- for maintaining peace and good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing bail bond and shall abstain from any criminal activities and the 5 Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 release instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. 13. In case of violation of terms and conditions of bail bond, petitioner shall be called upon to serve the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the concerned trial court.
Decision
14. In view of the above discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to extend as mentioned above. 15. Pending I.As., if any, is disposed of accordingly. 16. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent back for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 15 / 05 /2024 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)