Ajit Modak, Son of Magan Modak, resident of Nawagarh, P.O. – Kharkhari, P.S. – v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1120 of 2016 ------ Ajit Modak, Son of Magan Modak, resident of Nawagarh, P.O. – Kharkhari, P.S. – Madhuban, District – Dhanbad. .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, Advocate Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. Order No. 10 / Dated 24.06.2024 ------ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. No. 1703 of 2006 arising out of Baghmara (Madhuban) P.S. Case No. 126 of 2006 (T.R. No. 28 of 2015), whereby the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 341, 323, 324 & 326 of the I.P.C. and thereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 ½ year and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section Page 1 of 5 326 of the I.P.C., S.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and also convicted under Section 341 of the I.P.C. for fine of Rs. 500/- and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that on 31.05.2006 at about 7:00 P.M., in the evening, while the informant Dilip Modak and his brother Tapan Modak had gone to fetch water from the Government Hand Pump, all of a sudden, the petitioner Ajit Modak armed with a sword in his hand, Sanjiv Modak, Ramakant Modak, Nayan Modak having weapon in their hand, came there and started assaulting the informant and his brother Tapan Modak. As a result, Tapan Modak sustained injury upon his left eye, caused by sword. After the occurrence, the informant lodged a written report and on the basis of written report, Baghmara (Madhuban) P.S. Case No. 126 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 307/34 of the I.P.C. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The case record was remitted back to the court of learned C.J.M, Dhanbad for framing the charge, holding that no prima-facie case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is Page 2 of 5 made out against the petitioner and accordingly, the case was transferred to the court of Magistrate, where charges were framed under Section 341, 323, 324, 326. 504/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2015 was preferred the petitioner and the learned appellate court has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire deposition of witnesses, there is no whisper against the petitioner that he has given sword blow to the injured causing grievous injuries to his eye, rather it is consistently proved that the sword blow was given by co-accused Nayan Modak and the petitioner has assaulted another injured of this case namely, Dilip Modak by chain, which caused scratches over the chest and found to be simple in nature. The occurrence took place in a sudden manner for fetching water from government hand pump. There was no pre-mediation for causing any particular injuries, rather there Page 3 of 5 was exchange of assault from both the sides. No offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is attracted against the petitioner, for which he has been sentenced for three years S.I. along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and for other offences, petitioner has been sentenced to 1½ years S.I. along with fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner has remained in custody about seven months during investigation / trial of the case and has been sufficiently punished for his guilt. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the present petitioner was holding sword which was snatched by Nayan Modak, who assaulted the injured Tapan Modak on his eyes causing grievous injures, therefore, the conviction and sentence of petitioner with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. is fully justified under law and he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence and this revision is fit to be dismissed. 9. I have given anxious consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case and also peruse the trial court record, it appears that the witnesses i.e. P.W. -1, 2, 3 & 4 have been examined and all the witnesses of facts have consistently proved that the sword blow was given by Nayan Modak and not by present petitioner. It is specifically stated by P.W.-2 that present Page 4 of 5 petitioner has assaulted by chain to the injured, who has sustained simple injuries. It also transpires that the scuffle took place in sudden manner and there is exchange of assault. Petitioner has remained in custody since about seven months during trial of the case, having no criminal background. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner has already punished sufficiently for his guilt. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the sentence passed against the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner during investigation / trial of the case. 11. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/-NAFR Page 5 of 5