Appellant challenged conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304(II) IPC. High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence to time already undergone in custody due to appellant's severe cancer and diminished capacity, discharging bail liability.
Sentence modified to the period already undergone in custody; bail bond liability discharged.
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. 267 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 08.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2004)
Surendra Singh
….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP --------
05/ 22.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 08.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2004, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.08.2003 after doing their duties in their work place i.e. Mercy Hospital, the appellant and husband of the informant decided to take liquor as both of them were given Rs.100/each by the Hospital Authority. After consuming liquor they were returning their houses. In the meantime, son of the appellant asked as to why he had consumed so much liquor and uttering filthy languages with him. It is alleged that the appellant and his son assaulted the victim-deceased with fists and slaps. It is further alleged that deceased returned to his house and narrated the entire story to her wife and they went to the house of appellant to ask from them as to why the accused did so and while they were on the way, the appellant and his son started abusing and assaulted with fists and slaps on the belly of deceased due to which he started vomiting and thereafter the informant with the help of one Madhu Kumar took her husband to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.
4. At the outset learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein it is stated that the appellant is now suffering from cancer and for this he is under regular treatment at Saroj
2
Gupta Cancer & Research Centre, Kolkata. He went under tongue surgery due to the cancer and as a result of which he is not able to speak clearly as such looking to the present condition of the appellant the sentence may be modified for the period undergone.
5. Leaned APP does not dispute the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that so far as original appellant No.1Jitendar Kumar Singh @ Jitender Kumar Singh @ Jitu is concerned he has died and his name is also deleted vide order dated 04.07.2022. So far as surviving appellant No.2-Surendra Singh is concerned he is suffering from cancer.
6. Having regard to the facts of the case and looking to the peculiar condition of the appellant interest of justice would be sufficed by sustaining the conviction, however, sentence ought to be modified for the period already undergone. From perusal of record it appears that appellant remained in custody for about 4 months.
7. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be released for the period already undergone.
8. 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
10. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
11. 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 imposed for culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be modified in light of the appellant's health condition and period of custody.
Whether the appellant should be discharged from the liability of his bail bond after the sentence modification.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Singh
State of Jharkhand
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court