Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 338 (JHR)

Lal Kishore Raut v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-19

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Ms. Leena Mukherjee, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 3. This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment dated 01.09.2010 passed in Cri. Appl. No. 35/07 passed by learned Sessions Judge Godda, whereby the learned appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.09.2007 passed in G.R. No. 177/98 corresponding T.R. No. 91/07 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, whereby all the four petitioners were convicted for offence under Sections 323, 324 & 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year, 2 years & 3 years respectively with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. It was also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is confining his argument in the present case on the point of sentences. Learned counsel submitted that the case arises out of Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 64 of 1998 and upon investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for alleged offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the charge was framed for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324/34, 325/34 and 341 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that apart from four persons who are the petitioners before this Court, one more person namely, Foto Raut was also an accused in the present case, who expired on 23.02.2006. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the age of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the time of conviction was 60 years, 30 years, 32 years and 28 years respectively. The date of conviction is 17.09.2007 and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 72 years, 42 years, 44 years and 40 years respectively. 6. 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the time of conviction was 60 years, 30 years, 32 years and 28 years respectively. The date of conviction is 17.09.2007 and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 72 years, 42 years, 44 years and 40 years respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that it has come in the judgment passed by the learned courts below that there was land dispute between the parties and there was also a counter-case filed arising out of the same incident, but the accused in the counter-case were acquitted. Learned counsel submitted that the informant party and the petitioners have blood relation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter submitted that it has also come in evidence, as apparent from the judgment passed by the learned courts below, that Foto Raut (since deceased) was the order-giver and subsequently, fight started. The learned counsel submitted that it has come before the learned trial court that the offence which has been committed by the petitioners, is their first offence. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Keshav Lal Mandal (Informant and P.W.-2) Lal Kishore Raut (Petitioner No. 1) assaulted him on head with Farsa. Further allegation that Foto Raut (Dead), Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3), Subhash Rayut (Petitioner No.-2) and Pairu Raut (Petitioner No.-4) assaulted P.W.-2 on the elbow of left hand, shoulder and knee of right leg. As per P.W. 2 Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3) assaulted on head of Gopeshwar Mandal (P.W.-4) with farsa. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Gopeshwar Mandal (P.W.-4 and injured witnesses) on being exhorted by Foto Raut (Dead) Lal Kishore Raut assaulted on head of Keshav Mandal (P.W.-2) with Farsa. Subhash Raut (Petitioner No.-2), Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3) Pairu Raut (Petitioner No.-4) assaulted Keshav Mandal (P.W.-2) with lathi and broke his left hand and injured his right leg and shoulder. Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3) took farsa from Lal Kishore Rout and assaulted on the head of Gopeshwar Mandal (P.W.-4). Subhash Raut (Petitioner No.-2), Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3) Pairu Raut (Petitioner No.-4) assaulted Keshav Mandal (P.W.-2) with lathi and broke his left hand and injured his right leg and shoulder. Kailash Raut (Petitioner No.-3) took farsa from Lal Kishore Rout and assaulted on the head of Gopeshwar Mandal (P.W.-4). The learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to injury upon the victims P.W.2 and P.W.4 submits that all the injury on the P.W.4 were found to be simple in nature and head injury and knee injury on the P.W.2 were simple in nature but injury on his arm and shoulder was grievous. He submits that it has also been recorded with respect of injury of P.W.4 that his injuries could be caused due to fall on uneven surface. He submits that it has been recorded in the impugned judgment that the fight started at the instance of the co-accused Foto Raut who has expired. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence was first offence of the petitioners and there was land dispute, the victims as well as the petitioners are related to each other, coupled with the fact that the F.I.R. is of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced the rigors of the criminal case for almost 22 years now, some lenient view may be taken and sentence be modified. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no minimum sentence provided under Sections 323, 324 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the petitioners have already remained in custody for about one month and 21 days. 12. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer, but does not dispute the aforesaid submissions which have been made on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the impugned judgments. She further submitted that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, then the fine amount should be enhanced to a total of Rs. 1,00,000/- (50,000/- for each victim i.e. P.W.-4 and P.W.-2). 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the case was instituted as back as in the year 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1,00,000/- (50,000/- for each victim i.e. P.W.-4 and P.W.-2). 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the case was instituted as back as in the year 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324/34, 325/34 and 341 of Indian Penal Code. Further, all the four petitioners were convicted for offence under Sections 323, 324 & 325 IPC. From the perusal of the injury report, it has been recorded in the impugned judgments that it appears that the head injuries on the victims i.e. P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 were found to be simple and the injury on the left arm including shoulder of P.W.-2 was found to be grievous in nature. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have remained in judicial custody for a period of about 01 month and 21 days and they have faced the rigors of the criminal case right from the year 1998 and much time has elapsed since then. It is also not in dispute that the present offences for which they have been convicted, was the first offence of the petitioners and there was land dispute between the parties and further, fight was started at the instance of Foto Raut (since deceased). This Court finds that the present age of the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 72 years, 42 years, 44 years and 40 years respectively. 14. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence is required to be modified in order to serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is confined to the period already undergone and the fine amount is modified and is enhanced to a total amount of Rs.01 lakh to be jointly to paid by the petitioners and is to be deposited before the learned trial court by latest by 31.03.2020. Upon deposit of the amount, the same is to be disbursed to P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each who are the victims of the alleged offence after due identification. The petitioners may file two demand drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each in favour of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 respectively. Upon deposit of the amount, the same is to be disbursed to P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each who are the victims of the alleged offence after due identification. The petitioners may file two demand drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each in favour of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 respectively. In case the aforesaid amount is not deposited before the learned trial court by 31.03.2020, the petitioners would undergo the sentences already imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court and the learned court below shall immediately cancel the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners. 15. This criminal revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 17. The records received from the learned court below are directed to be sent back to the court concerned. 18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX”.