Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 643 (JHR)

Bishnu Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-05-15

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT The two appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka vide his Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.4.1999 in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1994. Against the said Judgment. the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 13.8.1993, the informant and his family members were sleeping in his house. At about 1 :00 A.M., they woke up hearing the sound of continuous dog barking and then came out of the room. They saw that several dacoits have entered in the house after breaking the main gate and then started committing dacoity. It is alleged that the dacoits took ten cotton and tericott on sarees, two cartoon of soap and also gold and silver ornaments and cash worth Rs.1,300/-. The. Police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and then the accused persons faced trial. 3. In order to establish charges, altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution; convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in earlier paragraphs. 4. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, teamed counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing for a while on the merit of appeal submitted that there is nothing much to argue on the merit of the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellants and therefore, he confines his arguments on the question of sentence only. He submitted that the appellants have already suffered major part of the sentence by remaining in custody for about six years and they have suffered rigours of protracted tri-al for about five years during the trial before the Trial Court and the present appeal is also pending since 1999. Accordingly, he prayed that the sentence of ten years awarded by the Trial Court be reduced and modified suitably and after such a long lapse of time, the appellants be not sent to jail again when they have already suffered major part of their sentence. I . find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Accordingly, he prayed that the sentence of ten years awarded by the Trial Court be reduced and modified suitably and after such a long lapse of time, the appellants be not sent to jail again when they have already suffered major part of their sentence. I . find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Having gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I also feel that since the appellants have already remained in custody for about six years and as such, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years requires to be modified. 6. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, this appeal is dismissed on its merit. However, so far the question of sentence is concerned, considering the facts noticed above, in my view, since the appellants have already remained in custody for about six years and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of ten years is reduced to the period already undergone by them but, they are directed further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) only each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. If the fine is deposited by the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Trial Court, the same shall be paid to the informant. With these modifications and reduction in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.