Partly allowed

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/445/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging convictions under Sections 307/34 IPC (appellant 1 died abatement), 324, and 341 IPC, the High Court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence. Instead of awarding further imprisonment, the Court directed payment of fines.

What did the court decide?

Surviving appellants released from further imprisonment liability upon payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each within 4 months, otherwise to suffer the rest of the sentence.

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu And Ors. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 445 of 2005

¶4

---------

¶5

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-2, Ranchi, corresponding to S.T. No.444 of 2002.)

¶6

¶7

Md. Neyazuddin @ Sonu 2. Md. Hasib @ Dhiru 3. Md. Naushad 4. Md. Shagir ….. …. Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand. ….. …. Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

------For the Appellant :Mr. Rohit Kumar, Amicus For the Respondent-State :Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P

¶12

05/23.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-2, Ranchi, corresponding to S.T. No.444 of 2002, whereby the appellant Nos.1 & 2 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 & 341 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Five years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each u/S 307/34 IPC and R.I. for one month with a fine of Rs.500/- each u/S 341 IPC. However, appellant no.3 & 4 have been convicted for the offence under Section 341/324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month with a fine of Rs.500/- each u/S 341 IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for two months. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶14

3. Appellant No. 1, namely, Md. Neyazuddin @ Sonu died during pendency of this appeal and this appeal has already been dismissed as abated against him vide order dated 30.6.2022.

¶15

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 05.05.2002 the informant along with his friends have gone to the house of Sayad Juber Sah to attend marriage. Due to delay in marriage, informant along with his three friends rushed to Bano Manjil and saw that the appellants were standing there. On seeing the informant,

¶16

¶17

appellants said that “Sale ko Jan Mar do” upon which appellants started assaulting him due to which he received several injuries.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions:-

¶19

(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity.

¶20

(ii) No independent witness has been examined.

¶21

(iii) Evidences are contradictory in nature.

¶22

(iv) No injury report has been produced in the Court.

¶23

After the aforesaid submission, he further made an alternative argument that the incident is of the year 2002 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 the surviving appellants are middle aged persons and there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants and the appellant nos.2, 3 & 4 also remained in custody for about 51 days.

¶24

6. 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 antecedents of the surviving appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.

¶25

7. 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 does not suffer from any infirmity as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.

¶26

8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellants with respect 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.

¶27

9. 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 2002 and about 21 years have

¶28

¶29

passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellants remained in custody for about 51 days and they never misused the privilege of bail.

¶30

10. 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, but subject to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- each. It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.15,000/- each within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order, before the D.L.S.A., Ranchi; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.

¶31

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

¶32

12. The surviving appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶33

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, DLSA Ranchi, and the surviving appellants through the O/I of the concerned Police Station and the LCR be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶34

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶35

Fahim /-

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Neyazuddin Sonu 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

Nasim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Firoz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Pintu Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bishwanath Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand