Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 13 (JHR)

Ashok Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2023-01-03

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13th July 2011 and order of sentence dated 14th July 2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.204 of 2007, in connection with complaint case No.159 of 2005, whereby and where under the learned trial court holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC, convicted therein and further convict was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) under section 376 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months. Learned court below also directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, the same will be given to the victim, daughter of Sri Gobardhan Nayak, R/o Palkot P.S. Palkot, District-Gumla after proper verification. 2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the complaint case instituted by the complainant being complaint case No. 159 of 2005 on 5/8/2005. The complainant stated in the said complaint case that on 2/1/2005 (Sunday), the complainant was alone at her house because her father had gone to a guest. At about 9 P.M. Ashok Ram reached there enticed her and began to say that he would marry her and she may allow him to establish physical relation. It was further stated that when she denied he took out a knife from pocket and told that he would commit sex with her otherwise he would stab her and he forcibly fell her on bed and performed intercourse with her. When she started weeping, he told her not to disclose the matter to anyone and started enticing in several ways that he would marry her. The complainant has further stated that later on in the month of January looking opportunities he kept on committing rape with her due to that she became pregnant and she further disclosed in her complaint that at present she has pregnancy of seven months from Ashok Ram. The complainant further stated that on 26.7.2005 on Tuesday the respected persons of the village convened a meeting and they entrusted her with all her responsibilities to Ashok Ram. Thereafter Ashok Ram accepted her as his wife and took her to his house. The complainant further stated that on 26.7.2005 on Tuesday the respected persons of the village convened a meeting and they entrusted her with all her responsibilities to Ashok Ram. Thereafter Ashok Ram accepted her as his wife and took her to his house. But on 03.08.2005 he beat her and drove her away from his house and his father Mahadeo Ram told her that she would return with a Watch, Colour T.V., Sofa Set, bed, chairs and Rs. 25,000/-cash from her father otherwise she should live at the house of her father and demanding all these articles they ousted her from the house. Thereafter the complainant was examined on S.A. on 14.11.2005 and the case was transferred to the court of S.D.J.M, Gumla and on 18.12.2006 cognizance against the accused was taken Under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions on 06.07.2007. The learned A.D.J. F.T.C.-III, Gumla had framed charge on 07.09.2007 under section 376 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned defence counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar and learned A.P.P. Mr. Tapas Roy appearing on behalf of the state. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 5. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and he is confining his argument only on the point of sentence. It has been pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place as far back as on 2/1/2005 and it is admitted case of the prosecution that in Panchayati, the marriage was solemnized between husband and the victim and after the marriage the appellant had agreed to take the victim to his house as his wife and accordingly she was taken by the appellant and therefore the dispute arose between them and then she was driven out of the house and thereafter the case was instituted by the victim and in this background, it has been submitted by learned defence counsel that it is not a case under section 376 of IPC, although he is not arguing this case on merit and confining his argument only on the point of sentence. It has further been pointed out that the appellant was sentenced to the imprisonment for a period of 5 years and he has already remained in jail half of the sentence imposed upon him which is evident from the order dated 28.03.2014 of this Court in this appeal. It has further been pointed out that the appellant is ready to pay the compensation amount to be paid to the victim by way of compensation. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 6. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted when the appellant is confining his argument on the point of sentence only, the Court may pass appropriate order on the point of sentence after upholding the judgment of conviction under section 376 of IPC. Appraisal & Findings 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record of the case. 8. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after commission of the offence of rape as alleged in the complaint petition by the victim, the physical relationship between them continued and thereafter she became pregnant. It is further evident from the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that a Panchayatiwas held and after Panchayatithe appellant agreed to take the victim as wife and the appellant took her to his house as a wife and both of them remained as husband and wife and thereafter some dispute arose between them and then the appellant kicked her out from his house and then the victim started living with her parents. It has also come in the evidence that a child was born out of their wedlock and the child was with the victim. Further it is found that the occurrence has taken place as far back as in the year 2005, about more than 17 years ago and the appellant is suffering with trauma and miseries of criminal prosecution for a long period of time. Further it is also found that the appellant has already served more than half of the period of sentence, as awarded by the learned court below, i.e. five years of imprisonment as awarded by the learned court below. Further it is also found that the appellant has already served more than half of the period of sentence, as awarded by the learned court below, i.e. five years of imprisonment as awarded by the learned court below. It has further been found that since the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and therefore this court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 13th July 2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.204 of 2007 against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. 9. In the backdrop it is found that there are mitigating factors for reducing the period of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant because of the adequate and a special reasons as stated above and both the appellant and the victim had been living as husband and wife after the commission of the offence of rape and a child was also born to them. Further it is also found that some dispute had arisen between them and thereafter the victim started living with her parents and then the case was instituted. It is also further found that the appellant has already remained in jail more than half of the sentence as awarded by the learned court below against the sentence of 5 years and in this view of the matter, this Court finds that the purpose of justice would be meted out if the order of sentence is altered to the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and further by imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) by way of compensation to be given to the victim, d/o Sri Goberdhan Nayak, R/o Palkot, P.S. Palkot, District-Gumla. 10. Accordingly this court sets-aside the sentence as imposed by learned court below and alters the sentence of imprisonment by imposing the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and further imposes a sentence of fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim. 11. Since, the appellant Ashok Ram is on bail and, therefore, a period of four months’ time is given to him from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 15000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-1 d/o Sri Goberdhan Nayak, R/o Palkot, P.S. Palkot, District-Gumla. 12. 11. Since, the appellant Ashok Ram is on bail and, therefore, a period of four months’ time is given to him from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 15000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-1 d/o Sri Goberdhan Nayak, R/o Palkot, P.S. Palkot, District-Gumla. 12. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 15000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to victim P.W. 1 so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, the appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellant, he will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellant serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 13. The appellant may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazaratof the concerned Civil Court. At the moment he deposits the fine amount, he (the appellant) shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and he shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellant, the notice shall be sent to the victim P.W.1 and on her appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to her. In case, if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not present before the Court after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim P.W.1 as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Gumla, if required. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above. 15. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above. 15. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the Lower Court Records to do needful and for its compliance in this regard in letter and spirit.