….. 1. Nand Lal Pandit 2. Bhushan Pandit 3. Pradeep Pandit 4. Sanju Pandit v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1465 of 2007 ….. 1. Nand Lal Pandit 2. Bhushan Pandit 3. Pradeep Pandit 4. Sanju Pandit 5. Kailash Yadav 6. Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav 7. Kinu Pandit Versus …… Appellants The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A. P. P. For the State …… ORAL JUDGEMENT IN COURT 06/05.07.2024 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2007 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No-I), Godda in connection with
Legal Reasoning
S. C. No. 55 of 2001 arising out of Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 207 of 1999 corresponding to G. R. No. 595 of 1999 whereby the appellants namely Nand Lal Pandit, Bhushan Pandit, Pradeep Pandit, Sanju Pandit, Kailash Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav and Kinu Pandit have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of one (1) year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each counts 1 meaning thereby each shall pay Rs. 1,000/- and the entire amount shall be paid to the injured persons namely Bhuneshwar Pandit and Bhola Pandit. 2. As per FIR, it is alleged that the appellants had assaulted the informant- Bhuneshwar Pandit and one Bhola Pandit armed with Lathi and Danta etc. and due to which the informant himself and one Bhola Pandit had sustained injury. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and leaned counsel for the State. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable. It is alternatively submitted that the appellants have remained in jail for a considerable period and they have faced protracted trial and he is not pressing on the point of their conviction and he is making submission only on the point of their respective sentences and as such, sentence of the appellants may be reduced and the appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount imposed by the learned Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection and has submitted that necessary orders may be passed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It transpires that FIR was lodged on 30.06.1999 under Sections 147/447/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants. 8. It transpires that the police had submitted charge sheet under Sections 147/448/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on 16.11.2000 against the appellants before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. Thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda had taken cognizance 2 under Sections 147/448/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on 15.01.2001 against the appellants. 9. After supplying police paper to the appellants, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147/448/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by learned District and Sessions Judge, Godda on 12.02.2002 and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. It transpires that during trial, the prosecution had got examined six (6) witnesses, as follows: (i) PW-1 is Tatbir Pandit, (ii) P.W.-2 is Bhuneshwar Pandit i.e the informant, (iii) P.W.-3 is Dr. Satendra Mishra, (iv) P.W.-4 is Bhola Pandit, (v) P.W.-5 is Jagdish Pandit and (vi) P.W.-6 is Shaligram Kuwar. 11. The prosecution had got exhibited following documents, as follows:- (i) Ext.-1 is the fardbeyan, (ii) Ext.-2 and 2/1 are the injury reports, (iii) Ext. -3 is the formal FIR and (iv) Ext.-3/1 is written application. 12. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 08.01.2007 by learned Sessions Judge, Godda and to which they have denied the circumstances put forth before them. 13. Neither any defence witnesses were examined nor any documents, in support of his case, have been marked on behalf of the appellants as Exhibits. 14. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the 3 appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of one (1) year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each counts and the entire amount shall be paid to the injured persons namely Bhuneshwar Pandit and Bhola Pandit. 15. It transpires that Dr. Satendra Mishra i.e. P.W.-3 had examined the injured Bhola Pandit and found following injuries:- (i) A bruise 3” x 1” on the upper thigh of right leg, (ii) A bruise 2” x 1” on the right arm and (iii) A bruise 1 ½” x ½” below on left knee. The Doctor opined that all injuries were simple in nature and injury report has been marked as Ext. -2. 16. It transpires that the said Dr. Satendra Mishra i.e. P.W.-3 has examined the injured Bhuneshwar Pandit and found following injuries:- (i) A lacerated wound 1 1/2 ” X 1/16” X 1/16” on the left thumb, (ii) A bruise 1 ½” x 1” on the left thigh and (iii) A bruise 1 ” x ½ ” on the left arm. The Doctor opined that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and all were simple in nature and injury report has been marked as Ext. -2/1. 17. Thus, it is evident that the injuries sustained by the informant- Bhuneshwar Pandit and the injured Bhola Pandit were simple in nature. 18. It further transpires from the record that the appellants have remained in custody for a certain period also. 4 Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as 19. under:- “Section 4:- Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.— (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, havingregard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, andmay in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. 5 (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.” 20. It appears that it is a case of long protracted trial as the occurrence took place in the year 1999 and conviction made by the learned Court below on 22.09.2007 and appeal is pending before this Court for around 17 years. Thus, the appellants have faced long protracted trial and thus, benefit of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is extended to these appellants. 21. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No-I), Godda in connection with S. C. No. 55 of 2001 arising out of Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 207 of 1999 corresponding to G. R. No. 595 of 1999 by which the appellants namely Nand Lal Pandit, Bhushan Pandit, Pradeep Pandit, Sanju Pandit, Kailash Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav and Kinu Pandit have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code are affirmed, but the sentencing part can be reduced in the facts and circumstances of this case. 22. Considering the facts and in the circumstances that the 6 appellants have faced protracted trial for more than 24-25 years, this Court can take lenient view and as such, the appellants namely Nand Lal Pandit, Bhushan Pandit, Pradeep Pandit, Sanju Pandit, Kailash Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav and Kinu Pandit are extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, sentence is modified and the appellants namely Nand Lal Pandit, Bhushan Pandit, Pradeep Pandit, Sanju Pandit, Kailash Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav and Kinu Pandit are directed to be released on executing bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety for like amount each for a period of one year by giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and as such, the appellants are directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety for like amount each and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding one year, and in the meantime, the appellants are directed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The appellants are further directed to deposit the fine amount as directed by the learned Court below, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 23. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1465 of 2007 is accordingly dismissed with modification in the sentencing part as indicated above. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 7