Disposed

Sadanand Das v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./335/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand held that the conviction was well-founded based on consistent evidence. While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentences for aged petitioners by reducing imprisonment to time already undergone but enhanced the fines to Rs. 20,000 each due to long delays and advanced ages.

What did the court decide?

Sentences modified to imprisonment already undergone; fines enhanced to Rs. 20,000 per petitioner.

Sadanand Das Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 335 of 2012

¶3

Sadanand Das

¶4

Jadu Das @ Yadu Das

¶5

Tuku Das (died on 02.02.2017)

¶6

Ratan Das

¶7

All sons of Late Mangal Das, All residents of Village- Pathna, Bairagitola, P.O.- Pathna, P.S.- Barharwa, District- Sahebganj … … Petitioners -VersusThe State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner s : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.

¶10

Through Video Conferencing

¶11

¶12

06/ 10.09.2021 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel

¶13

appearing for the petitioners.

¶14

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No.3 (Tuku Das) has already died on 02.02.2017 and an affidavit annexing his death certificate has been filed by the State. He further submitted that the Petitioner No.3 has already deposited the total fine amount of Rs.2,300/- imposed upon him by the learned trial court and he has taken instructions from the legal representatives of the Petitioner No.3 that they are not interested in pursuing the case and therefore, the present criminal revision application may be treated as abated, so far as the Petitioner no.3 is concerned.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State is present.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶18

¶19

the petitioners, the present criminal revision application stands abated, so far as it is related to the Petitioner No.3 (Tuku Das).

¶20

Office is directed to delete the name of Petitioner No.3 from the cause title of the criminal revision application in red ink.

¶21

Accordingly, the present criminal revision application is confined to the remaining petitioners namely, Sadanand Das, Jadu Das and Ratan Das only.

¶22

The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Rajmahal in G.R. Case No. 269 of 2004 / T.R. No. 1007 of 2011 (arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case No. 62/2004) and dismissed the criminal appeal.

¶23

The learned trial court had convicted the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.300/- under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 07 days, Simple Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month and Simple Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶24

¶25

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

¶26

In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submissions on the point of sentences of the petitioners only. He submitted that the occurrence is of 15.07.2004 and since then, more than 17 years have elapsed and the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long period and they have no criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have remained in judicial custody from 08.05.2012 to 22.05.2012 during pendency of the present criminal revision application and they have already deposited the total fine amount of Rs.2,300/- each imposed upon them by the learned trial court as apparent from the order-sheet dated 17.08.2011 and 19.08.2011 of the learned trial court and the present age of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are 66 years, 65 years and 55 years respectively and therefore, a sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be modified to some extent.

¶27

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

¶28

The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State submitted that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentences of the petitioners, then the fine amounts may be enhanced and the same may be remitted to the two victims of the case.

¶29

Findings of this Court

¶30

The case was registered as Barharwa P.S. Case No. 62/2004 on the basis of the written report of the Informant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken and charges were framed against the petitioners to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶31

In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is Horen Das, P.W.-2 is

¶32

¶33

Krishna Das who is the son of the informant, P.W.-3 is Astami Devi who is an injured witness and the wife of the informant, P.W.-4 is Jaideo Das who is the nephew of the informant, P.W.5 is Naresh Prasad Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-6 is Bishwanath Das who is the informant himself, P.W.-7 is Subit Rajak who has been declared hostile, P.W.-8 is Mahmood Alam who is the Medical Officer who had examined the informant and his wife Astami Devi and P.W.-9 is the Keshar Prasad who had conducted X-ray on the informant and found fracture injury on the right side of frontal parietal bone of his skull. The prosecution exhibited the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-1, requisition of injury report as Exhibit-2, true copy of fardbeyan as Exhibit-3, injury reports of the informant and Astami Devi as Exhibit-4 and 4/1 respectively and opinion on X-ray report of the informant as Exhibit-5.

¶34

After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C wherein they denied the incriminating substances put to them and claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. 15. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and recorded that the witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case in the statements before police as well as before court and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. The learned trial court found that Bishwanath Das and Astami Devi have stated before the court that they sustained head injury on their persons and Doctor P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have found same cut wound, lacerated wound on their foreheads on frontal parietal bone. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned above.

¶35

¶36

The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and recorded concurrent findings and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioners.

¶37

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that P.W.-6 is the informant of the case and he deposed that on 15.07.2004 at about 08.00 A.M., he was at his home and eight persons including the petitioners came there armed with lathi and sabbal (iron rod) and asked him to vacate the residence as warrant was issued against them. Then, Jadu Das dragged him out from his house and Satik Das assaulted him on his head by means of sabbal and he sustained cut injury. Jadu Das sat over his chest and started pressing his neck and then his wife Astami Devi came there to save him. Then Ratan Das assaulted her on her head by means of sabbal and she fell down and then, Maya Devi, the wife of the informant’s brother came there and the accused persons assaulted her by fists and slaps.

¶38

This Court further finds that the informant (P.W.- 7) and his wife Astami Devi (P.W.- 3) are the injured witnesses of the case and both have fully supported the prosecution case and P.Ws.-1, 2, 4 and 5 (Investigating Officer) have corroborated the evidence of the informant and the injury reports proved by the doctor have corroborated the injuries sustained by the informant and his wife at the hands of the accused persons. This Court finds that the accused persons including the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention came to the house of the informant armed with lathi and sabal and they indiscriminately assaulted the informant and his wife.

¶39

This Court finds that both the learned courts below have recorded consistent and concurrent findings after properly

¶40

¶41

considering the evidences on record including the medical evidences.

¶42

This Court is of the view that there is no scope of reappreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding for interference in revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld.

¶43

So far the sentences of the petitioners are concerned, considering the facts that the occurrence is of the year 2004 and more than 17 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long period; this is their first offence; they have also remained in judicial custody for some period and the present age of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are 66 years, 65 years and 55 years respectively, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners are modified to some extent and the fine amounts are enhanced. 22. Accordingly, the sentences of the Petitioner No.1 (Sadanand Das) for each offence are modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody with total fine of Rs.20,000/-. So far as the sentences of the Petitioner No.2 (Jadu Das) and Petitioner No.4 (Ratan Das) are concerned, their sentences under Sections 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are modified and reduced to Simple Imprisonment for 03 months with total fine of Rs.20,000/- each.

¶44

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentences of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 shall run concurrently and the period of custody undergone by them in judicial custody shall be set off. The fine amounts already deposited by the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2

¶45

¶46

and 4 in connection with the present case would be adjusted in the aforesaid fine amount awarded by this Court.

¶47

The petitioners are directed to deposit the respective fine amounts before the learned court below within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this judgment to the learned court below and the amounts, so deposited by the petitioners, shall be remitted to the victims of the case namely, Bishwanath Das and Astami Devi in equal proportion after due identification.

¶48

In case, the fine amounts are not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the petitioners would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned court below.

¶49

Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and modification in the sentences of the petitioners, this criminal revision application is hereby disposed of .

¶50

Bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner No.2 and 4 are cancelled.

¶51

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶52

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶53

Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to the court concerned.

¶54

Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶55

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶56

Saurav/

Sadanand Das v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Das v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Singh Alias Kalu Vs State of Jharkhand

Ratanlal Paramanik and Another Vs the State of Jharkhand and Another

Babmani Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mumtaz Miya Alias Mumtaz Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand