The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1465 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 24.08.2004, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial Case No. 85 of 2003) Jeevan Singh The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Appellant ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Resp.-State --------- : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP -------- 08/ 25.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 24.08.2004, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial Case No. 85 of 2003, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.06.2003 at 8 P.M. the victim had gone to the house of the appellant for singing marriage songs on the eve of his marriage. It is alleged that at 12 O’ clock midnight when the victim went to a tube well to drink water, the appellant forcibly dragged her from there by gagging mouth and raped her in the adjacent field. He also threatened her not to raise alarm otherwise she would be murdered, but after going home, she told her father. It is alleged that on the very next day a panchayati was called for in which the appellant refused to marry the victim and on 17.06.2003 he married another girl. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are close relative of the prosecutrix and there is no eye witness of the occurrence except the prosecutrix. He submits that the story of rape was concocted and unbelievable that a boy whose marriage was already settled and the function was going on in his house would leave the function and go to commit rape when there is admitted position of huge number of people in 2 the house. Further, the investigating officer did not seize the clothes, whether they were torn, intact or as to whether the said clothes were stained with soil or ash. He further submits that the appellant has been trapped by the victim and her father. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2003 and the appellant has 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 is a middle aged person and he remained in custody for about 41 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is 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 appellant. However, she fairly submits that as per record, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant; 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 the testimony of prosecutrix which is credible, can be the sole basis for conviction under Section 376 of the IPC, as such; 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 appellant with respect to the sentence awarded to him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice and admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 241 days. 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 place in the year 2003 and about 20 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform. 9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, 3 the sentence ought be modified to the extent that the appellant 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 is sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. 11. It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.50,000/-, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Latehar; 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
Decision
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. 13. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Latehar and also to the appellant through the officer- in-charge of concerned police station. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/