Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017
(Against the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2017 and order of sentence dated
28.01.2017, passed in S.T No. 443/2013, arising out of Nawadih Bazar P.S. Case
No. 07 of 2013 corresponding to GR No. 256 of 2013, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj)
1. Arjun Bhuiyan
2. Aklesh Bhuiyan @ Akhilesh Bhuiyan ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
Judgment dated: 22.01.2024
This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2017, passed in S.T No. 443/2013, arising out of Nawadih Bazar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2013 corresponding to GR No. 256 of 2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under Sections 341/323/506/436/428/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 341/34 IPC, R.I. for one year for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC, R.I. for two years for the offence u/s 506/34 IPC, R.I. for three years for offence U/s 436/34 and R.I. for two years for the offence u/s 428/34 IPC. However, all the above sentences were directed to run concurrently and period undergone by the appellants during trial 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 were directed to be set off while calculating the sentence.
2. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the written report of Lalita Devi-PW-1 (informant) addressed to the officer-in-charge Nawadih Bazar police station, Palamau stating therein that on 9.02.2013 on Saturday at 8:00 AM Arjun Bhuiyan, Aklesh Bhuiyan, Lalmuni Devi, wife of Arjun Bhuiyan, Congress Ram, Pramod Ram and Sanjay Ram came to his door, abused and assaulted them, causing injury and pain on the whole body. They also assaulted her daughter Renu Kumari in his chest causing abdominal pain. Due to fear, she along with her children came to the house of younger father-in-law, Prasad Ram for sleeping. At 10:00 PM she saw the fire coming out from her house, then she raised hullah. Villagers assembled when her house was burnt. 7 pigs, 7 hen, Cycle, Clothes and food material were burnt to ashes. All the seven persons has threatened to kill her and to set fire to her house and they set it on fire. Her husband was working outside and she along with her children was living alone there.
3. On this basis, Nawdiha P.S. Case No. 07 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 436, 504 IPC against above named the accused persons and the police after investigation, filed charge sheet against Arjun Bhuiyan and Akhilesh Bhuiyan under Sections 341, 323, 427, 428, 436, 504 Indian Penal Code vide charge-sheet No.39 of 2013 on 17.07.2013. On the 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 basis of material on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltoganj took cognizance against the accused persons under Sections 341, 342, 323, 427, 428, 436 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj has framed charge on 16.06.2014 under Section 341/34, 323/34, 506/34, 436/34 and 428/34 of Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.
4. Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, associate counsel of Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Somehswar Roy, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the incident has taken place as far back as in the year 2013, about 10 years ago and both the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under sections under Sections 341/323/506/436/428/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 341/34 IPC, R.I. for one year for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC, R.I. for two years for the offence u/s 506/34 IPC, R.I. for three years for offence U/s 436/34 and R.I. for two years for the offence u/s 428/34 Indian Penal Code.
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017
6. It is further submitted that the appellants are not going into the merit of this case and confining their argument only on the point of sentence.
7. It has further been pointed out that it is admitted case of the prosecution, particularly, the informant PW-1 that the dispute has arisen with respect to the fencing of the land (ghoran) as evident from the para 12 of the deposition of the PW-1.
8. It has further been pointed out that it is admitted case of the prosecution that there is no eyewitness to the incident that these two appellants were involved in setting the house on fire.
9. Further it has also been pointed out that no burnt article as alleged in the FIR have been seized or recovered or marked exhibits by way of documents or by way of material exhibits.
10. Further it has also been pointed out that both the appellants were 35 years old at the time of recording of the statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and now over a period of time they have reached to their middle age.
11. Further it has also been pointed out that the appellant No.1 has remained in jail for about 6 months and 29 days whereas appellant No.2 has remained in jail for about one months and 22 days and there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history and the appellants are ready to pay the sentence of fine amount by way of compensation to the informant instead of 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 sentence of imprisonment and therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellant that instead of awarding further sentence of imprisonment, let the sentence of fine be imposed by way of compensation, for which they are ready.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
12. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that it is a case inter alia of committing mischief of fire and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323,341,506,436,428 read with 34 of the IPC and accordingly they have been sentenced and there is no legal point to interfere with the impugned judgement of conviction and the order of sentence and accordingly submitted that this appeal is fit to be dismissed. Although, learned APP did not controvert the fact that the appellant No.1 remained in custody for about six months 29 days and appellant No.2 had remained in custody for about one month 22 days.
Appraisal & Findings
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case including the lower court record.
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017
14. It is found that it is admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties had been on inimical terms with respect to the landed property dispute for fencing of the boundary (ghoran). It is admitted case of the prosecution that there is no eyewitness to substantiate that both these appellants were setting the house of the victim on fire. No burnt articles have been brought on record by way of documents or by way of material exhibits, although, it is alleged that several household articles, like cycle, chair, cot, animals including the hens and pigs have been burnt, but neither the burnt articles list nor any kind of seizure list have been brought on record in evidence by the prosecution. It is further found that there is nothing on record to show about the criminal history against anyone of the appellants.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is found just and fair to award the sentence of fine instead of awarding the sentence of further imprisonment inasmuch as no useful purpose would be served to send them again in jail.
16. Accordingly this Court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2017 passed in S.T No. 443/2013, arising out of Nawadih Bazar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2013 corresponding to GR No. 256 of 2013, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj.
17. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that the learned trial court ordered the sentence of simple imprisonment for one 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 month under Section 341/34 of IPC, R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under section 323/34 of the IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 506/34 of the IPC and R.I. for 03 years for the offence punishable under section 436/34 of Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years for the punishable under section 428/34 of the IPC, this Court after taking into consideration the holistic view, it is found justified that both the appellants are sentenced to an imprisonment for the period already undergone by them under the various sections jointly and further sentence of fine is imposed by way of compensation to be given to the victim PW-1 Lalita Devi.
18. In the result, both the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for a period already undergone by them and further sentence of fine of Rs. ₹10,000/- (Ten Thousands) collectively be imposed upon both the appellants jointly under the various heads / counts of the IPC by way of compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-1 Lalita Devi, wife of Ravindra Ram, resident of Jamalpur, P.O - Gulabjhari & P.S. - Nawadih Bazar, District Palamau at Daltonganj.
19. Since, both the appellants Arjun Bhuiyan and Aklesh Bhuiyan @ Akhilesh Bhuiyan are on bail and, therefore, a period of four months' time is given from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand Only) by way of compensation in order 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 to give it to the victim-injured as mentioned above.
20. In case of the default of payment of fine amount by way compensation in order to give it to victim-injured so awarded by this Court within the stipulated period of time, each of the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
21. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount be deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that both the appellants serve the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine.
22. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment, they deposit the fine amount, the appellants shall be released forthwith and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly.
23. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, the notice shall be sent to the victim injured Lalita Devi and on her appearance, the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to her.
24. In case, if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not present before the Court 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.256 of 2017 after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim-injured as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Palamau, if required.
25. In the backdrop of this case, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above.
26. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 22.01.2024/NAFR R.Kumar/-