Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 411 (JHR)

Anil Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-28

RAJESH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The appellant has been charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and finally he has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.09.2005 passed by Sri. Braj Kishore Pandey, Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2002. 3. Kolebira P.S. Case No. 36 of 2001 has been registered on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Basudeo Naik on 03.08.2001, wherein it has been alleged that the informant was sitting in his house at about 1.30 p.m. The appellant came with ‘Chura’ and has abused and assaulted him, which has resulted in bleeding injury. 4. The police, after completion of the investigation, has submitted charge sheet to which cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions where charges had been framed under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. Charges have been explained to the appellant to which he 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 five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 Basudeo Naik is the informant. PW-2 Etwa Naik is the brother of the informant and hearsay witness. PW-3-Dukhni Devi is the wife of the informant and she has been declared hostile. PW-4 Krishna Kumar Singh is the I.O. of this case. PW-5 Dr. Nand Kumar Mandal is the medical officer. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the nature of injury and considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2001, the appellant has remained in custody for about 13 months, the trial has concluded in the year 2005 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020, the sentence of three years, as imposed by the trial court, may be converted to the period already undergone. 8. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. 8. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. From perusal of the medical evidence of PW-5, it appears that the injury is simple in nature and the appellant has remained in custody for about 13 months. The incident is of the year 2001, the trial has concluded in the year 2005 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020. The appellant has suffered due to long pendency of the appeal. 10. Considering the entire material on record, the order of sentence dated 01.09.2005, which is impugned in the present appeal, is hereby, modified to the extent that the period of rigorous imprisonment of three years, is reduced to the period already undergone. Further, the fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the appellant to be deposited within two months in the court below from today. The said amount should be released in favour of the informant or his legal heirs. 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.