Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 176 (JHR)

Punit Turi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-15

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 09.12.2011 and order of sentence 12.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No. 262 of 2000, arising out of Gomia P.S. Case No.105 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.858 of 1999, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and also directed that 50% of the fine would go to the informant and in case of default of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment (S.I.) for three months each. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant Sukar Singh Ghatwar had informed to the Police Station, Gomia on 20.11.1999 at 10.00 A.M. that her daughter Jhunwa Kumari aged about 14 years had gone for tuition on 19.11.1999 in the muhalla. She was a student of Class IX. She did not return till noon of the day then he (the informant) and his family started to search her, but she could not be traced out. In the evening at about 3-4 P.M. he got information from the villagers that accused Punit Turi and Bablu Ansari had induced her, kidnapped her and took her away to some other place. Thereafter, he approached to the family of aforesaid accused persons, but they did not listen him and abused him in a filthy language and threatened that they would assault him. Later on, it was disclosed that they had taken her to Hazaribag & Ranchi Road by bus. At Ranchi Road, another two accused namely Bablu Kewat & Ajay Karmali joined with them and boarded on train for Khalari and as they reached at Khalari Railway station along with the victim girl, one Dharmnath Singh who was the uncle of victim girl met them at Khalari Railway Station. When he saw the victim girl along with the accused persons, he enquired from her as to why and how come was she there. She narrated him the entire facts of her abduction by the accused persons. In the meantime, accused persons succeeded in fleeing away from the scene. When he saw the victim girl along with the accused persons, he enquired from her as to why and how come was she there. She narrated him the entire facts of her abduction by the accused persons. In the meantime, accused persons succeeded in fleeing away from the scene. Thereafter, Dharamnath Singh had informed the father of the victim and took her back to her parents’ house and then the informant informed to the Police Station about the recovery of the victim girl. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an F.I.R. was registered against the accused Punit Turi and Bablu Ansari U/Ss. 363 & 366-A of the I.P.C. The I.O. investigated the case and after completing the investigation submitted two charge-sheets against four accused persons namely Punit Turi, Bablu Ansari, Bablu Kewat and Ajay Karmali u/ss. 363, 366/34 of the I.P.C. The then A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of the offence against them on 06.03.2000 and then on 22.06.2000 and after supplying the Police Papers to the accused persons, committed this case to the Court of Sessions on 21.08.2000. After commitment, this case record was received in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 12.09.2000 and after registering it as S.T.No.262 of 2000, the Judge transferred this case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge III, Bermo at Tenughat for disposal. After appearance of the accused persons, charges against the accused persons were framed U/Ss. 363 and 366A read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. on 07.01.2002. The substance of charges was read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial and the learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trail, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. 4. Heard the learned defence counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants: 5. Learned defence counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted at the outset that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore the argument on behalf of the appellants is confined on the point of sentence only. 6. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants: 5. Learned defence counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted at the outset that the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore the argument on behalf of the appellants is confined on the point of sentence only. 6. It has been pointed out that the charges in this case were framed for the offence punishable under sections 363/34 and 366- A/34 of I.P.C., but after trial, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 363/34 of I.P.C. only. It has further been pointed out that the appellants over a period of time, reached to their middle age and there is no criminal history against the accused appellants Punit Turi and Bablu Ansari. Further, it has been pointed out that both the appellants have almost remained in jail for a substantive period of time i.e., both the appellants have remained in jail for about 10 months and 22 days. Further the appellants are ready to pay the fine amount, which have been imposed by the learned Court below and therefore let this appeal be decided accordingly by taking a lenient view by modifying the order of sentence. Arguments on behalf of the State: 7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that since the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore let the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under section 363/34 of the I.P.C. be confirmed and order of sentence may be modified under the facts and circumstances of this case suitably. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 9. It is found that the learned Court below after conducting the trial has found both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 363/34 of the I.P.C. and accordingly they were convicted therein. Since the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore this Court sustains the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below against both the appellants for the offence punishable under section 363/34 of the I.P.C. 10. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, it is found that the occurrence took place as per as far back as in the year 1999. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, it is found that the occurrence took place as per as far back as in the year 1999. Further it has been pointed out that the victim girl as per the report of the doctor, was major, i.e., about 19 years old. Further it has also been pointed out that both the appellants have reached to the middle age over a period of time and the appellants are suffering with the trauma and miseries of criminal prosecution for a long period of time, that is about 25 years and there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history. 11. Under all these mitigating factors, this Court finds just and fair to modify the order of sentence as awarded by the learned Court below. 12. Accordingly, the order of sentence dt. 12.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No.262 of 2000, arising out of Gomia P.S. Case No.105 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.858 of 1999 against these two appellants is set-aside and both the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by them and further both the appellants are sentenced to fine to a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) to be deposited by each of the appellants by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim P.W. 2. Since both the appellants are on bail, they are given four months’ time from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousands Only) by each of the two appellants by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim – Jhunwa Kumari (P.W.2). 13. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) by way compensation in order to give it to victim P.W. 2 so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, each of the appellants will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 13. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) by way compensation in order to give it to victim P.W. 2 so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, each of the appellants will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 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 appellants, they 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 and to ensure that the appellants serve the sentence of imprisonment as awarded in case of default of payment of fine. 14. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment they deposit the fine amount, they (the appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and they 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 appellants, the notice shall be sent to the victim P.W. 2 and on her appearance, the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, 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 remain 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. 2), 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 (P.L.V.) of District Legal Services Authority (D.L.S.A.), Bokaro, if required. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above. 16. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent forthwith to the concerned court below to comply the order in letter and spirit.