Partly allowed

Durga Manjhi Durga Manjhee And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC25 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/2044/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under IPC 323/34, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal abated on account of death of appellant No.1. It upheld the conviction but modified the sentence for surviving appellants to the period already undergone considering the age, lapse of time, and lack of misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against conviction of surviving appellants is dismissed; sentence is modified to the period already undergone; appellants are discharged from bail liability.

Durga Manjhi Durga Manjhee And Ors. Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2044 of 2004

¶3

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004/35 of 2004.)

¶4

1.Durga Manjhi @ Durga Manjhee

¶5

2.Dhatka Manjhi @ Dhataka Manjhee 3.Pantu Manjhi @ Pantu Manjhee ..… Appellants Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

For the Appellants : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP

¶9

6/Dated: 25^th August, 2023

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. At the outset learned APP submits a report of officer in charge, Karma Tand P.S. which indicates that the appellant no.1-Durga Manjhi has died. A photo copy of the death certificate issued by the local Mukhiya has already been submitted. The said copy is taken on record.

¶12

3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the instant appeal is dismissed as abated against the appellant No.1-Durga Manjhi. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004/35 of 2004, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine further S.I. for two months and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶13

5. The prosecution case in brief is that there was a joint guava tree which has been cut away by Durga Manjhee being the elder brother of the informant and his two sons. In the evening the informant along with his two son went there and enquired regarding the cutting of Guava tree and also demanded their share. Further, the demanding of share annoyed Durga Manjhee who incited his two sons to kill the informant and his son.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the accused persons are the gotia of the informant. He further submits that the injury is simple in nature.

¶15

7. Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2004 and the surviving 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 appellants are middle aged persons and they remained in custody for about 2 months and never misused the privilege of bail and further the surviving appellants are having no criminal antecedent, so some leniency may be granted by this court.

¶16

8. 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. 9. 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.

¶17

10. 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 surviving appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice and the surviving appellants, who are now aged middle aged persons and also remained in custody for about 2 months. 11. 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 2004 and about 19 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody

¶18

mentally, physically and economically and the appellants were in jail for a considerable period and they have never misused the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any criminal activities; thus, they have a chance to reform.

¶19

12. 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 surviving appellants shall be released for the period already undergone.

¶20

13. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is hereby modified to the extent that the surviving appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone. 14. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶21

15. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶22

16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court and also to the appellants through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶23

17. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

Amardeep/

Durga Manjhi Durga Manjhee And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Manjhi Durga Manjhee And Ors. 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

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Pintu Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Heera Lal Jha Vs State of Jharkhand

Mundrika Mistry And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Govind Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Md.Neyazuddin  Sonu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Pintu Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Heera Lal Jha Vs State of Jharkhand

Mundrika Mistry And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Govind Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand