Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 312 (JHR)

Uma Shankar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-14

RAJESH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2006 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar in Special Case No. 10 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each has been imposed with stipulation and appellant no.1, Uma Shankar Pandey has also been convicted for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 3. Palajori P. S. Case No. 91 of 1997 has been registered on 24.10.1997 under Sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged that the informant, Balhari Rajwar while returning to his home on 14.10.1997 was intercepted and abused by the appellant no.1, Uma Shankar Pandey and other co-accused. They took him to the house of Uma Shankar Pandey where he was abused and assaulted for not giving the land for village school. 4. The above allegation has been investigated and finally all the six accused have been charge-sheeted including the present appellants. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed for Trial. Charge was framed under the above Sections against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which their defence was denial. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. To substantiate the charges, altogether eight witnesses, namely, P. W.-1, Ramdeo Kole, P. W.-2 Raju Rajwar, P. W.-3, Hasruddin Mian, P.W.-4, Harilal Mirdha, P.W.-5, Balhari Rajwar (the informant), P.W.-6, Son Bilasi Rajwar, P. W.-7, Motilal Mirdha and P. W.-8, Sultan Khan have been examined by the prosecution. 8. Earlier bailable warrant has been issued by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2019 and subsequently due to non appearance on 14.01.2020, non-bailable warrant has been issued. 8. Earlier bailable warrant has been issued by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2019 and subsequently due to non appearance on 14.01.2020, non-bailable warrant has been issued. An Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1263 of 2020 has been filed for recalling/modification of the order dated 14.01.2020 taking a plea that these appellants are seriously ill and at present admitted in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (in short RIMS), Ranchi. 9. During course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these appellants have not challenged the order of conviction rather they have only confined their prayer on the sentencing part. It has been argued that plea has raised before the Court below for grant the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act , but that benefit has wrongly been denied to these appellants. It has further been argued that the incident is of the year 1997, the trial has been concluded in the year 2006 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020 and due to long pendency of the proceeding, the appellants have already suffered sufficiently and as such, their sentences may be converted into fine only. 10. Learned APP has opposed the prayer. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the record, it appears that although the appellants have been charged for Sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for Section 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with other accused persons, but only two persons i.e. these appellants, have been punished. The Court below has found that there is exaggeration and accordingly, these appellants have been punished for the Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 1 has been punished for the Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code also. 12. Considering the nature of allegation and period of litigation and the fact that these appellants and the informant are co-villagers, the sentence of these appellants is converted into fine. Fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- each, which shall be deposited within one month from today in the Court below. The fine amount shall be released in favour of the informant. 13. With the above modification, the present appeal is, hereby, disposed of. 14. Fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- each, which shall be deposited within one month from today in the Court below. The fine amount shall be released in favour of the informant. 13. With the above modification, the present appeal is, hereby, disposed of. 14. Although vide order dated 14.01.2020, bail of these appellants has been cancelled, but in view of the fact that the appeal has been disposed of, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. There is no need to pass any further order isn I. A. No. 1263 of 2020 and the same also stands disposed of.