Appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 201/34 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to release the appellant for the period already undergone, considering the lapse of time and prior custody.
Sentence modified to release for period already undergone; discharged from bail bond liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1569 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 09.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 87) Sayed Imtiyaz Hussain ….. Appellant
Sayed Imtiyaz Hussain ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Mohua Palit, APP --------
08/ 26.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 09.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 87, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 4th / 5th August, 1986 while officer-in-charge and police personnel of Mango P.S were on patrolling duty on NH-33, the informant saw an ambassador car coming from Ranchi side and in spite of stoppage signal, the appellant along with two other accused did not stop the car. Therefore, they chased it and succeeded in stopping the car and upon search a dead body was recovered from the car.
4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant was initially charged for the offence under Section 302 along with Section 201/34 and under Section 25, 26 (B) & Section 27 of Arms Act, however, the learned trial court has acquitted this appellant from the charges of Arms Act and Section 302 of the IPC and he has been convicted only for Section 201/34 of the IPC. He fairly submits that since the matter is of 1986 and about 37 years have lapsed as such some leniency may be granted by this Court by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone. He also remained in custody for 1 months and 26 days.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State does not dispute the aforesaid contention that the appellant has been acquitted from the charge
2
of 302 IPC and convicted only for Section 201/34 of the IPC.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, and looking to the comprehensive facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have considerably proved the case of the prosecution and the findings of the trial court; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to sentence awarded to him; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellant to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of justice and admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 1 month and 26 days.
8. Thus, on point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 1986 and about 37 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for a considerable period and he has never misused the privilege of bail and now he is not involved in any criminal activities; thus, he has a chance to reform.
9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already undergone.
10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
12. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
13. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence under Section 201/34 IPC should be modified in light of the 37-year lapse and time spent in custody.
Whether the appellant should be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sayed Imtiyaz Hussain
The State of Jharkhand
Deeepk Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court