High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 904 of 2006 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2006 and Order of sentence dated 05.06.2006 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Godda in Sessions Case No.49 of 2005]. 1. Sri Ram, Son of Babu Lal Rai. 2. Babloo Mandal, Son of Siya Ram Mandal. 3. Gore Lal Kunwar, Son of Sumran Kunwar. 4. Sikchilli Kunwar, Son of Uchit Kunwar. 5. Dukhwa @ Kinanath Kunwar, Son of Uchit Kunwar. 6. Sunil Roy, Son of Babu Lal Roy. 7. Sikandar Kunwar, Son of Vakil Kunwar. 8. Shyam Sundar, Son of Babulal. All resident of Village – Sadar Gangti, P.S. – Thakurgangti, District – Godda (Jharkhand). … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … ….. … Respondent For the Appellants For the Respondent : Md. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT By Court:
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.06.2006 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godda in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have Page 1 of 6 been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 (2) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation, but considering the poor health of the appellant Bablu Mandal, Gorelal Kunwar the sentence of three years R.I. has been converted into three years S.I. and the period of custody will be commuted by giving the benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. to all the convicts. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night on 26.06.2004, at about 10:30 P.M. the son of the informant namely Nityanand Thakur, who had gone to supply milk at Santhali Tola came back running and shouting. Thereafter, the accused persons along with 8-10 other associates having lathi and danda also came chasing the informant’s son Nityanand Thakur, but due to fear the informant’s son Nityanand Thakur hide in the house. The accused persons abused Nityanand Thakur and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the informant and his another son Sachidanand Thakur asked them as to why they were doing so, but suddenly, the accused persons conjointly intercepted Sachidanand and took him by dragging towards Gangti Chachora. It is further alleged that Page 2 of 6 Bindeshwar Thakur, Jai Narayan Thakur and other persons of vicinity have witnessed the occurrence. It is further alleged that in the morning he came to know that dead body of his son was lying near Budhwa Dand in Khaira Bahiyar and he with some villagers went there and saw the dead body of his son Sachidanand Thakur lying there. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, FIR being Meharma (Thakur Gangti) P.S. Case No. 109 of 2004 was registered against the ten named accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the appellants and others and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34 of the I.P.C 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused person, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Page 3 of 6 Exhibit-1 : Fardbeyan. Exhibit-2 : Carbon copy of Inquest Report. Exhibit-3 : Post-mortem report. Exhibit-4 : Endorsement on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-5 : Original F.I.R. 8. 9. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent persons and have committed no offence at all. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above, but has acquitted the accused Dinesh Mandal and Bhado Kumar. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.06.2006, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merit of the judgment confined himself towards quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that in course of trial, appellants have remained in custody about 01 years 09 months and maximum sentence awarded by Page 4 of 6 the learned trial court to them is three years. More than 20 years have been elapsed from the date of alleged occurrence. Therefore, imprisonment already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice in this case, instead of undergoing further imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court. Therefore, this appeal may be disposed of with alternation in sentence. 12. On the other hand, learned APP has raised no serious objection to the aforesaid point of argument, rather defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits. 13. It appears that the first information was lodged in the year 2004 for the offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants, but the accused persons had faced the trial for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. and the learned trial court, after considering the evidence on record, has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Page 5 of 6 14. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age, antecedents and characters and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellants have also remained in custody for one year and nine months, I feel inclined to alter the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone instead of imprisonment of three years as awarded by the learned trial court. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits, but with alteration in sentence as stated above. 16. The appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also discharged 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. [ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 4th December, 2024 Sunil /N.A.F.R. Page 6 of 6