Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 406 (JHR)

Gunda Nayak v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-28

RAJESH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. By Court: Heard the parties. 2. The appellant has been charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of five years for the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 23.05.2006 and the order of sentence dated 25.05.2006 passed by Sri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, GTS, East Singhbhum, in Sessions Trial No.177 of 2005. 3. Musaboni P.S. Case No.52 of 2004 has been registered on 30.12.2004, on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Giridhari Dhir (P.W.-6) wherein it has been alleged that the appellant and the informant are the next door neighbour and there was dispute regarding construction of common boundary wall. The appellant has gone to the house of the informant with sword and assaulted on his head. 4. On completion of the investigation, the appellant has been charge sheeted and after taking cognizance, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions where charges have been framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. Charges have been explained to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment, against which, present appeal has been filed. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.1, Amulya Nayak has been declared hostile. P.W.2, Sidam Nayak, P.W.3-Kamal Kumar Nayak, P.W.4-Sukhdeo Dheer, P.W.5-S.K. Shakil, P.W.6- Giridhari Dhir (informant) and P.W.7-Narendra Nath Dhir are the eye witness. P.W.-8 is Dr. Nazir Ahmad, who has given opinion regarding nature of injury. P.W.9-Bijon Kumar Bose is the I.O. of this case. 7. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has confined his prayer to the order of sentence only. Challenging the order of sentence dated 25.05.2006, it has been argued that the appellant has already remained in custody from 31.12.2004 to 09.07.2007 i.e. for about two years and seven months. The dispute is of the year 2004, the trial has concluded in the year 2006 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020. Considering the above fact, sentence, as imposed by the trial court, may be converted to the period already undergone. 8. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. The dispute is of the year 2004, the trial has concluded in the year 2006 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020. Considering the above fact, sentence, as imposed by the trial court, may be converted to the period already undergone. 8. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. It appears that there is land dispute between the parties and they are next door neighbour. The dispute is of the year 2004 and the appellant has remained in custody from 31.12.2004 to 09.07.2007 i.e. for about two years and seven months. The appellant has suffered due to long pendency of the appeal. 10. Considering the entire aspect of the case, the order of sentence dated 25.05.2006, which is impugned in the present appeal, is modified to the extent that the period of rigorous imprisonment of five years, is reduced to the period already undergone. Further, the fine of Rs.5,000/-is imposed upon the appellant to be deposited within three months in the court below from today. The said amount should be released in favour of legal heirs of the informant as it has been informed that the informant has already died. 11. With the above modification, present appeal stands disposed of. 12. Since, the appellant, above named, is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.