Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 38 (JHR)

Kunj Bihari Singh v. State

2000-12-14

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.1996 passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 37/94 dismissing the appeal with modification in sentence after converting the conviction under Section 307, IFC to under Section 325, IPC and the petitioner No. 1 was directed to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 325, IPC whereas the petitioner No. 2 was directed to be released on executing a bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for keeping peace and maintaining for a period of three years under Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act. The appellate court further directed both the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- each separate which was paid to the victim Kailash Prasad in addition to fine or to suffer S.I. for one year in default. 2. One Smt. Lakhshwari Devi gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that on 7.5.1991 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused Gunu Devi petitioner No. 2 was throwing directed soil in the orchard in front of the house of the informant which was objected by the husband of the informant whereupon accused/petitioner No. 1 and his wife petitioner No. 2 along with other started abusing. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 Kunj Bihari Singh started assaulting the husband of the informant. He was also assaulted by the petitioner No. 2 with lathi as a result of which the husband of the informant became un-conscious. Accordingly the first information report was lodged which was registered under Sections 307/323/34 of the IPC The police after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both the petitioners. The witnesses were examined in the court below and after hearing both sides, the trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years each. However, there was no sentence passed for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with modification in the sentence and both the petitioners were convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code in place of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with modification in the sentence and both the petitioners were convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code in place of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years whereas petitioner No. 2 being the lady was released on probation. 4. Thereafter both the petitioners preferred this revision application alleging that the court below committed error in convicting the appellants and the judgment passed by the court below is fit to be set-aside. 5. This revision application was admitted on the question of sentence only as per order dated 27.3.1997. It is also apparent from the order dated 19.2.1997 that the compensation amount as ordered by the appellate court has already been deposited in the trial court. Thus the judgment of conviction deemed to be confirmed. 6. Apparently the petitioner No. 2 has already been released on Probation by executing bond for maintaining peace and tranquility for a period of three years. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1, namely, Kunj Bihari Singh is an old man and there is no criminal antecedent against him as well as there is much contradiction in the evidence collected during trial. It is also submitted that the case was initiated in the year, 1991 and the petitioners faced the trial for a long and protracted period and as such both the petitioners already suffered much. It is further argued that the appellate court has not considered the case of the petitioner No. 1 though he is an old and also suffering from ailments. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended before me that it is true that the compensation amount as ordered by the appellate court has already been deposited in the trial court and the matter will only be considered on the point of sentence. 9. Perused the lower courts record. Obviously, this case was initiated as back as in the year, 1991. It is also evident from the judgment of the appellate court that this case was found true under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for which, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced. 9. Perused the lower courts record. Obviously, this case was initiated as back as in the year, 1991. It is also evident from the judgment of the appellate court that this case was found true under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for which, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced. It is further clear that the occurrence took place at the spur of moment for a trivial cause as well as the appellant no. 1 is an old and ailing man. 10. In the above facts and circumstance, I find that the imposition of fine instead of rigorous sentence will be suffice for the ends of justice in the instant case. Thus the sentence passed as against the appellant No. 1 (Kunj Bihari Singh) is hereby modified and he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default he is to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. As regards to the sentence imposed upon petitioner no. 2, as she has already been released on Probation which does not required to be entered. With the above observation, this revision application is dismissed. 11. Revision dismissed.