Lala Vishwakarma Vs State of Jharkhand

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. ----------- 10/Dated: 03^rd July, 2026

¶10

Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

¶11

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.10.2004 and 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Garhwa in S.T. No.217 of 1991 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.18 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.64 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section 304 part I /34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under section 304 part I/34 with default stipulation and further directed to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under section 323 of IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶12

1 | P a g e

¶13

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2011 of 2004

¶14

2026:JHHC:20028

¶15

Factual Matrix:-

¶16

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 24.01.1991 at about 11:00 am, while the mother of the informant, Keshari Devi (P.W.4) was working in the field situated at village Narainpur, she forbade the accused, Lala Vishawakarma carrying his bicycle through her wheat field. Upon which, the accused, Lala Vishawakarma keeping his bicycle came with accused Lakhan Vishawakarma and assaulted the mother of the informant with danda on his hand and caused cut injury beween index finger and thumb of the left hand and also assaulted on the head and right hand of informant’s maternal uncle, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the informant brought his mother and maternal uncle to the police station and lodged a written report. Thereafter, the informant took his mother and maternal uncle to Sub-divisional Hospital, Garhwa for treatment but in the course of treatment, his maternal uncle died at about 7:30 pm on the same day.

¶17

On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Garhwa P.S. Case No.18 of 1991 was instituted for the offences under sections 302/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant along with co-accused, Lakhan Vishwakarma and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.217 of 1991 was registered. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

¶18

2 | P a g e

¶19

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2011 of 2004

¶20

2026:JHHC:20028

¶21

In course of trial altogether, 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:-

¶22

P.W.1- Sita Ram Ravi Das P.W.2- Kedar Prasad Sinha P.W.3 -Dr. Jwala Pd. Singh P.W.4 -Keshari Devi P.W.5 -Sanjay Vishwakarma P.W.6 -Hiroti Devi P.W.7- Malti Devi P.W.8 -Ram Dhayan Pal

¶23

Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced the

¶24

following documentary evidence;

¶25

Ext.1- Formal FIR Ext.2 - Fardbayan Ext.3 -Post-mortem report Ext.4 -Injury report Ext.2/1 -Signature of informant on fardbayan Ext.5 -Death report

¶26

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced

¶27

by the defence. The case of defence is completely denial form the occurrence and plea of innocence and after conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced accordingly for the offence as stated above, while co-accused, Lakhan Vishwakarma has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

¶28

Submission on behalf of appellant:-

¶29

3 | P a g e

¶30

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2011 of 2004

¶31

2026:JHHC:20028

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant and submitted that during trial and postconviction, the appellant has remained in custody for 3 years, out of total imprisonment for 7 years. Considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 1991. The appellant has undergone agony of trial for more than three decades and has sufficiently been punished by undergoing half of the sentence, therefore, again sending the appellant to jail custody for remaining period of sentence would not meet the ends of justice and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶33

Submission on behalf of State:-

¶34

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court on merits. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, he has fairly submitted that this case is stale one of the year 1991 and the appellant has sustained custody of 3 years, hence, appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice.

¶35

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶36

10.I have considered the submission of the respective parties and also perused the impugned judgment. It appears that the appellant has

¶37

4 | P a g e

¶38

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2011 of 2004

¶39

2026:JHHC:20028

¶40

assaulted brutally the mother and maternal uncle of the informant with danda as a result of which, his mother sustained injury on fingers of left thumb and his maternal uncle sustained injuries on head and right hand. Thereafter, they were brought to Sub-divisional Hospital, Garhwa, where on the same day at about 7:30 pm, the maternal uncle of the informant, Hari Rajwar succumbed to head injury. Considering the nature of offence and direct involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence, which was corroborated by the medical report as well as the eye-witness to the occurrence, who happens to be mother of the informant, I find that there is no error in the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant. Hence, the conviction for the offence under sections 304 Part I/34 and 323 of IPC is upheld.

¶41

11.So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1991 and since then more than three decades have expired and the appellant have suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant have remained in custody for 3 years of the total period of imprisonment as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant.

¶42