Poki Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 326 of 2006

[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 28.02.2006, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1996 / 45 of 2004 / 09 of 2005 ]

¶3

Poki Mandal, Son of Duli Mandal, resident of Village – Kashitand, P.S. – Jamtara, District – Jamtara.

¶4

… … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ….. For the Appellant : Mr. K.K.Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

Dated / 08.01.2025

¶11

By Court: Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶12

2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2006 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1996 / 45 of 2004 / 09 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the victim girl with default stipulation.

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶15

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in the fardbeyan of informant dated 01.01.1996 is that at about 7:00 PM on 01.01.1996, when she was returning home after discharging nature’s call, then Poki Mandal (appellant) caught and pushed her on the ground with intention to commit rape. On alarm raised by the informant, her parents reached there and saved her. The accused also assaulted them.

¶16

4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 02 of 1996 was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C.

¶17

5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet under Section 354 of the I.P.C. against the accused person. Cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and subsequently, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 203 of 1996 / 45 of 2004 / 09 of 2005 were registered. Charge has been framed for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶18

6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether three witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

¶21

Exhibit-1 : Injury Report of the victim girl.

¶22

8. However, on behalf of defence, four witnesses have been examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

¶23

9. After conclusion of evidence from the prosecution side, the statements of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the appellant pleaded to be innocent and false implication due to previous enmity.

¶24

10. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

¶25

11. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards point of sentence, as imposed by the learned trial court. It is submitted that the allegation against the appellant is that he caught hold of the victim while she was coming after discharge of nature’s call with intention to commit rape with her. The appellant was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C., but after conclusion of trial, he has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and directed to

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/with default stipulation. It is further submitted that the allegation proved by the prosecution culminated into indecent assault committed by appellant. It was his first offence and he has also remained in custody for about three months. The appellant is also ready to deposit the fine amount before the concerned trial court, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant appears to be disproportionate to his guilty, which may be reduced.

¶28

12. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant on merits, but has not raised any serious objection regarding reduction of sentence.

¶29

13. I have gone through the record of the case, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶30

14. It appears that admittedly it was first offence of the appellant and the allegation against him is that he laid down the victim with intention to make illicit relation with her, but on raising alarm, he left her and therefore, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. It further appears that the appellant has remained in custody during trial of the

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

case and also ready to deposit the fine amount before the concerned trial court. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is upheld, but so far sentence awarded to him is concerned, considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, antecedent, the same is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant along with fine.

¶33

15. Appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount within a period of three months from the date of judgment, if not deposited.

¶34

16. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.

¶35

17. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged.

¶36

18. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

¶37

19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶38

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)