High Court disposed of criminal appeal by sustaining conviction under SC/ST Act and IPC for caste atrocities but commuted sentence to prior imprisonment term contingent upon payment of fine to victim.
Sentence modified; appellant released for time undergone subject to payment of Rs.20,000 fine to victim within 4 months; discharged from bail bond.
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. 715 of 2005
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2005 and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2005, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2002/ 24 of 2002)
Jagmohan Singh ….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Majumdar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP --------
05/ 23.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2005 and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2005, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2002/ 24 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 3 (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also convicted and sentenced to RI for 4 years under Section 3 (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and further convicted and sentenced to RI for one year under Section 323 of the IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- to the victim lady and in default thereof further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.02.2000 at 8.00 A.M., when the informant along with her sons were going to take medicine near the dispensary of P. Banerjee road, the appellant was coming there and when the accused saw the informant he began to abuse her by repeating the voice, “You are the people of „Nich Jati, Adibasi‟ and used to lodge case and we will compel you to leave the Mihijam town.” It is further alleged that the appellant assaulted the informant by throwing her on the ground and repeatedly abused her in filthy languages.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the impugned order is based on only conjecture and surmises. There are serious
2
contradictions among the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is a retired army man and he has purchased a land adjacent to the plot of informant. The investigating officer was not the special officer empowered by the State Government. The informant prior to this case has also lodged another case against the appellant and his family member. He submits that the informant is quarrelsome lady and her husband is an Executive Magistrate and the informant has been harassing the appellant in various ways since long. The appellant has already filed an informatory petition for apprehension for lodging the fake case by the informant against him.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 2000 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 appellant is aged about 76 years and he remained in custody for some days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellant is having no criminal antecedents.
5. 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.
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 trial court; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is sustained.
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 since no motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and
3
admittedly the appellant is now aged about 76 years and also remained in custody for few days.
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 2000 and about 23 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the appellant was in jail for few 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.
9. 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 appellant shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-.
10. 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/-.
11. 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 the learned trial court, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. The learned trial court in turn shall pay the aforesaid fine amount to the victim after notice and proper verification.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
13. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, 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.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a reduction in sentence considering his advanced age and years elapsed since the incident.
Whether the appellant should be discharged from bail liability upon application of the modified sentence regime.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagmohan Singh
The State of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court