Allowed

Noth Rath Bage v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Jul 2023Cr.A(SJ)/1828/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. The court ruled that remanding the appellant to jail would not serve justice given his custody period and the time elapsed since the 1995 incident. He is sentenced only to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 within four months; otherwise, he must serve the original sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to fine of Rs. 20,000 to be paid within 4 months; on failure, appellant to serve original sentence. Bail bond discharged subject to payment.

Noth Rath Bage Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1828 of 2004

¶2

¶3

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 1996)

¶4

¶5

Noth Rath Bage ....Appellant -VersusThe State of Jharkhand ....Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P

¶9

¶10

12/26.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 353 I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 324 IPC and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months, but no separate sentence was passed under Section 353 I.P.C.

¶12

The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.11.1995 when the victim was returning by riding his motorcycle then 8-10 including the accused-appellant told him that Legislative Assembly and Officer Incharge of Jaldega Police Station were calling him. Accordingly, he went there, where he was assaulted by Bhujali on his head by the accused-appellant, as a result of which he sustained bleeding head injury.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

¶14

(i) The impugned judgment and order of conviction is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and as such is liable to be set aside.

¶15

(ii) The Officer Incharge of Jaldega Police Station, who is supposed to go to the place of occurrence, has not been examined. Investigating Officer has also not been examined. (iii) The Doctor has found the injury, which is simple in nature.

¶16

¶17

Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1995 and the appellant has 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 the appellant is middle aged person and he remained in custody for about 52 days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal antecedents.

¶18

Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the appellant; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.

¶19

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, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.

¶20

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 as admittedly the appellant remained in custody for about 52 days.

¶21

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 1995 and about 28 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for about 52 days 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.

¶22

¶23

Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of the 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 but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶24

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 subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/before D.L.S.A, Simdega.

¶25

It is made clear that the appellant shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Simdega; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.

¶26

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

¶27

The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.

¶28

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Simdega and also to the appellant through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Noth Rath Bage v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noth Rath Bage 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

Santosh Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Binay Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Rahman Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Irshad alias Babloo Vs State of Jharkhand

Sayed Imtiyaz Hussain Vs State of Jharkhand