Partly allowed

Badri Pandit And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/1732/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction for latha duni, the Single Judge upheld the conviction but modified the six-year rigorous imprisonment to a 6-year commutation contingent on payment of a Rs.5,000 fine by each appellant within four months, releasing them for the period already undergone pending satisfaction of the fine condition.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of six years R.I. modified to period already undergone subject to payment of fine Rs.5,000/- each within 4 months.

Badri Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1732 of 2004

¶4

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.09.2004/16.09.2004 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 281 of 1993/81 of 2001.)

¶5

1.Badri Pandit 2.Ram Prasad Pandit ..… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP

¶8

05/Dated: 22^nd August, 2023

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.09.2004/16.09.2004 respectively passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 281 of 1993/81 of 2001, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years.

¶11

3. The prosecution case in short is that due to a land dispute between informant and Shyam Lal Pandi. On 23.04.1992, Shyam Lal was preparing chappar and fixed a pole on the said land. The villagers tried to intervene but he did not pay any heed to them. Further the informant went to inform the matter to village Chowkidar but he could not be found. Thereafter, the appellants came armed with lathi, bricks stone and set the house of informant on fire.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a land dispute between the parties and previous enmity between them. He further submits that the I.O. of this case has not been examined in this case. He lastly submits that there is general omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and the case of the appellants are on the same footing as that of other accused persons, who have been

¶13

¶14

acquitted from their charges.

¶15

Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1992 and the appellants have suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as both the appellants are aged about 60 years and also remained in custody for about 3 months and they never misused the privilege of bail and further there are having no criminal antecedent.

¶16

5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellants.

¶17

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 learned trial court; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.

¶18

7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to sentence awarded to them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice. They also remained in custody for about 3 months.

¶19

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 1992 and about 31 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and now they

¶20

¶21

are not involved in any criminal activities; thus, they have a chance to reform.

¶22

9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought be modified to the extent that the appellants no.1 and 2 shall be released for the period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-each.

¶23

10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants no. 1 and 2 are sentenced for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. Rs.5,000/-each.

¶24

11. It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/-each, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Jamtara; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.

¶25

12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶26

13. The appellants no. 1 and 2 shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶27

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamtara and also to the surviving appellants through officer in charge of the concerned police station.

¶28

15. The lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Amardeep/

Badri Pandit And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Pandit And Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yudhisthir Rajak And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Budh Ram Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Nasim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Firoz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand