Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Singh S/O Ram Bilash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.240 of 2005
(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated
18.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.II,
Chatra, in S.T. Case No.12 of 2001, arising out of Huntergunj P.S. Case No.
52 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.251 of 2000.)
1. Shankar Singh S/o Ram Bilash Singh
2. Ramesh Singh S/o Udit Singh
3. Banit Singh
4. Tapu Singh, Both S/o Lochan Singh
5. Lalu Singh S/o Udit Singh
6. Awadhesh Singh S/o Govind Singh
7. Bal Ram Singh S/o Vinod Singh
8. Raju Singh S/o Kamta Singh ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V. N. Jha, A.P.P.
7/17.08.2022 This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction
and order of sentence dated 18.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. II, Chatra, in S.T. No.12 of 2001, arising out of Huntergunj P.S. Case No. 52 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.251 of 2000, whereby and where under, all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 147, 149, 448 and 435 of IPC and further in addition to the aforesaid offences, the two appellants, namely, appellant No. 9 Awadhesh Singh & appellant No. 12 Raju Singh were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC. The learned trial court had sentenced all the appellants to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under section 147 of IPC, R.I. for three years for the offence punishable u/s 435 and 149 of IPC and R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC and appellant No.9 Awadesh Singh and appellant No.12 Raju Singh were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 concurrently.
2. At the outset it has been pointed out that during the pendency of this appeal out of 12 appellants, appellants Nos.1, 2, 5 and 11 namely Udit Singh, Ram Bilash Singh, Govind Singh and Dinesh Singh respectively have expired and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that none of their near relative came forward to continue with this appeal on behalf of the deceased appellants and as such, let this appeal be abated with respect the deceased appellants as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants also filed an I.A. No. 4561 of 2022 submitting therein that since the four appellants i.e. appellant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 11 namely Udit Singh, Ram Bilash Singh, Govind Singh and Dinesh Singh have died and since no close relatives or kith and kin have come forward to continue with appeal, let this appeal be abated with respect to deceased appellants.
4. Having taken into consideration the submissions advanced and the contents raised in the I.A. No.4561 of 2022, this appeal is abated with respect to the four deceased appellants, i.e. Appellant No.1 Udit Singh, appellant No.2 Ram Bilash Singh, appellant No.5 Govind Singh and appellant No.11 Dinesh Singh.
5. Now this appeal is being heard on behalf of the rest surviving appellants who are renumbered in the cause title of memo of appeal.
6. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the written report dated 07.06.2000 of Asha Devi (PW-7) addressed to the Officer-In- Charge of Hunterganj P.S., Chatra. Briefly stating the allegations as stated in the said written report that the informant had possessed a piece of land by the side of pucca road in village Nagar on which the informant was constructing a new kaacha house with the aid of bamboos and kharh. The roof was already constructed. Villagers (accused) Udit Singh and Ram Bilash Singh claimed over the said land of the informant and as such since last few days, there had been some dispute. On 07.06.2000, at 8:00 O' clock in the morning, the husband of the informant had gone to Hunturganj block. The informant, her daughter named Manju and other small children 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 were in the house. At 01 PM, accused persons along with 8/10 unknown came to the house of the informant and surrounded her house. The accused were armed with 'lathi' and danda and had also brought with them Kerosene oil in a tin. Some persons entered into the house and took out one ataichi and one bucket. They also damaged degchi, and other utencils/buckets by means of lathi. Accused Awadhesh and Raju assaulted the informant and her daughter (Manju) by means of lathi. Informant and her daughter raised halla, on which neighbours started assembling there. Accused Awadhesh then put the house of the informant on fire with the help of a Mashal, as a result, the house of the informant along with a lot of articles kept there under burnt to ashes causing a loss to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) and the accused thereafter fled away with attaichi and bucket of the informant.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid written report dated 07.06.2000 of the informant (PW -7), a formal FIR was drawn vide Huntergunj P.S. Case No. 52 of 2000 under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 448, 436, 427 and 379 of IPC and investigation of the case commenced and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet No. 57 dated 30.07.2000 against all the FIR named accused. Learned CJM took cognizance of the offences as per the charge-sheet triable by the Court of Sessions and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Chatra had framed charge on 03.06.2002 under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 448, 436 and 379 of IPC and the learned trail after conducting the full- fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.
8. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assisted by learned counsel Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh and Mr. V.N. Jha, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of appellants-
9. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 submitted that the learned trial court did not consider the evidence in totality and the depositions of the witnesses in right perspective, even the seizure list witnesses have denied any recovery in their presence and none of the witnesses have disclosed the names of the articles burnt in the occurrence. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the Civil Court, the decree has been passed over the disputed piece of land in favour of the appellants, which has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, i.e. P.W. -3 and further it has also been pointed out by the learned defence counsel that this fact has been stated by the informant PW-7 also in para 7, which is evident from her depositions, particularly vide paras 10, 29, 30 and 31 also and this false case has been lodged by the informant people in order to grab the land which has been decided in favour of the appellants.
Learned defence counsel has also pointed out that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and that has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants in view of the fact that the attention of the informant PW -7 has been drawn to her earlier statement recorded by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. Vide paras 22, 24, 29 of her deposition. It has also been contended by the learned defence counsel that non-examination of the I.O. has caused serious prejudice to the defence in view of the fact that neither the place of occurrence, where the fire was said to have been broken out by these appellants has been proved, nor any remnants of fire which has been alleged to have been broken out by the appellants had been brought on record. The seizure list has not been duly proved in the eyes of law because of the none-examination of the I.O. PW - 7 categorically stated that she did not know as to whether fire was caused or not and her statement was not recorded by the police. The learned defence counsel has also pointed out that the learned trial court failed to consider the vital fact that none of the prosecution witness disclosed the name of the appellants except appellant No. 9 and 12 and further the admitted fact that the informant has not herself written the report before the police rather she admitted that 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 the written report was drafted by her husband and LTI was put by her and presently her husband did not come forward to support the allegations made in the written report and there is no material at all to prove the participation of other appellants in the occurrence and whatever allegations, though false and contrary, are against the accused appellant Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh whose identification is also not established and therefore unbelievable. In this view of the matter it is submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set-aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State-
10. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences available on record and found the guilt of the accused appellants and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
11. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the records including the lower court records.
12. It is found that it is admitted case of the prosecution that there had been a landed property dispute between both the parties for a long period of time and several proceedings were initiated between them and both the parties were on litigating terms including the civil suit and the proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. also. The land in question, where the alleged occurrence took place, was under
dispute and the suit was going on with respect to that property, which is said to have been decided in favour of the accused appellants in a civil suit. In view of the admitted fact that there was a dispute between the parties and both the parties were on inimical terms, this Court proceeds to examine the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties carefully and cautiously inasmuch as it is settled principal of law that the enmity is a double edged weapon and possibility of committing the offence as well as possibility of false 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 implications are imminent.
13. In this background, this Court finds that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused appellants, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether eight witnesses, who are PW - 1 Bal Chand Das, PW, 2 Keshwar Singh, PW - 3 Kala Devi, PW - 4 Domini Devi, PW - 5 Dabloo Singh, PW - 6 Santosh Kr. Singh, PW - 7 Asha Devi (the informant) and PW - 8 Manoj Kumar Singh, a formal witness who has proved the handwriting and signature on the FIR of the then Officer-in-charge Rajender Choudhery of Hunterganj P.S., which has been marked as Ext.-2 and the endorsement has been marked as Ext.-3. Apart from the oral evidences, some documentary evidences have also been brought on record, which are Ext. 1 is the signature of the seizure list witnesses Keshwar Singh (PW -2), Ext. 1/1 is the seizure list, Ext. 2 is a formal FIR and the Ext. 3 is the endorsement of the police officer with regard to registration of the case at the police station on the written report.
14. On the other hand, the defence has also adduced one witness DW-1 Wakil Singh and some of the documents have also been brought on record, which are the following Exhibits as under-
Ext.-A Certified copy of the report (application under section 144 of Cr.P.C.), Ext.- B- certified copy of formal F.I.R. in Chatra P.S. Case No. 57/2000, Ext. C- endorsement on complaint petition no. 137/2000, Ext. D- certified copy of order- sheet dated 4.12.2000 taking cognizance of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.57 of 2000, Ext. E- certified copy of charge sheet in Huntergunj P.S. Case No. 57/2000, Ext. F- certified copy of order of S.D.M. Chatra in case No. 45/2000, Ext. G- certified copy of notice u/s 144 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 45/2000, Ext. H- certified copy of measurement case No. 19/1999-2000 before C.O. Huntergunj, Chatra, Ext. I- certified copy of Anchal Amin measurement report dated 08.06.2000, Ext. J- certified copy of order in Misc Case No. 19/2000-2001, Ext. K- certified copy of order dated 29.08.96 in T.S Case No. 13/91, Ext. L- certified 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 copy of Decree in T.S. Case No. 13/91.
The defence has brought the aforesaid documents in order to take the defence that the land, where the offence is alleged to have been committed by them was belonging to the accused appellants and therefore the charges, which have been levelled against the accused appellants are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the land did not belong to the informant's people and therefore no offence is made out.
15. PW - 1 Bal Chand Das is a hearsay witness and he stated that he heard that the house of Pyare Singh was set on fire, but in the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know as to who were the persons involved in setting the house on fire and he had identified the accused persons, only because they were the co- villagers. Thus this witness has only supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that the house of the informant was set on fire, but he did not speak about the involvement of the accused persons.
16. PW - 2 Keshwar Singh is a seizure list witness and he has proved the signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 1, but he stated that no seizure was prepared in his presence and he had no knowledge or information regarding the occurrence that the house of the informant was ablaze.
17. PW - 3 Kala Devi deposed that on hearing alarm (hulla), she went on the road and saw that the house of Pyare Lal (husband of the informant) was under flame of fire and she had witnessed that for 4 to 5 persons were running away and she had identified the accused Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh. She further stated that she did not see anybody from his eyes that as to who was setting the house on fire, but specifically she stated that she had seen that the accused Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh were running away from the place of occurrence amongst 4 to 5 persons, who were running from the place of occurrence. Even in the cross examination, the testimony of this witness remained intact that the house of the informant was ablaze and also saw that four to five persons were 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 running away from the place of occurrence amongst them, she had identified the appellants Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh and thus the case of the prosecution has been fully corroborated by this witness who had seen from his eyes that the house of the informant was burning fiercely and two accused Awadhesh Singh & Raju Singh were running away from there amongst four to five persons. Although she admitted in the cross-examination that the place of occurrence was a disputed land where litigation was going on between the parties and the case was decided in favour of accused persons and there had not been any constructed house nor any roof at the place of occurrence.
18. PW -4 Domini Devi had stated that she had seen that the house of the informant was set on fire and the persons, who had set the house on fire, were running away from the place of occurrence and she had identified Awadhesh Singh, Raju Singh and Govind Singh, but could not identify others. In the cross-examination she also stated about prolonged litigations over the land at the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination, the facts stated by this witness that the house of the informant was set on fire and she had seen that the accused persons namely Awadhesh Singh, Raju Singh and Govind Singh were running away from the place of occurrence remained unbroken and therefore the case of the prosecution has been corroborated that the accused persons were running away after setting the disputed land on fire and amongst them she had identified the aforesaid accused persons, although the witness P.W.3 categorically stated that there had not been any constructed house nor any roof at the place of occurrence.
19. PW 5 Dabloo Singh examined on behalf of the prosecution stated that he did not know as who had set on fire the Tripal (canvas) of under construction house of Payre Singh (husband of the informant,) but he categorically stated that the Tripal (canvas) of under construction house of Payre Singh (husband of the informant,) was burning and he had seen that some people were extinguishing fire, but he did not remember the name of the persons.
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 This witness also stated that the house was under construction and there was no roof and no one was residing that place. This witness has been declared hostile, although the deposition of this witness that the house of Pyare Singh was put on fire and some people wear extinguishing the fire had been fully substantiated.
20. PW 6 Santosh Kumar Singh was the nephew of the informant and he deposed that on hearing alarm, he came out on the road and saw that some persons were running away after setting the house of Pyarelal on fire and this witness named the persons identified by him running away from the place of occurrence as Banit Singh (appellant), Shankar Singh (appellant), Dinesh Singh (deceased appellant), Pukar Singh, Bilash Singh (deceased appellant), Ramesh Singh (appellant), Lalan Singh, Pappu Singh & Sanjay Singh. It has been pointed out by learned defense counsel that this witness has taken the names of some persons, who were not the accused appellants, but still they have been named, but the facts remained unimpaired to take into consideration from the testimonies of this witness that he had specifically named some of the accused appellants namely Balit Singh, Shankar Singh, the deceased appellant Dinesh Singh and the appellant Ramesh Singh along with other persons and thus forming unlawful assembly. This witness had also stated that the articles kept in the house were burnt and he enquired from one Rohan Yadav as to when the fire caught the house, upon which, Rohan Yadav stated to this witness that the fire was broken sometime before. In result from the testimonies of this witness, it is well founded that this witness had also seen that the house of the informant was on ablaze and some persons were fleeing away from the place of occurrence and amongst them he identified some of them as stated above.
21. Another important witness, who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution is PW - 7 Asha Devi, who stated in his examination-in-Chief that her house was set on fire by the accused Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh by sprinkling Kerosene oil by a stick flaming with fire. She had also stated that the articles kept in 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 the house were burnt, although she did not take the specific names of the burnt articles. From the depositions of this witness, it appeared that she had corroborated her versions as stated in the FIR, although some minor addition has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the FIR, she had stated that it was the accused Awadhesh Singh, who had set the house on fire, but in the deposition, this witness had added the name of Raju Singh also along with Awadhesh Singh in setting the house on fire. It is well settled proposition of law that the FIR is not the Encyclopaedia where all the minute details about incident are to be demonstrated and therefore even if the name of Raju Singh was not pointedly disclosed there it does not mean that this witness is not truthful. Although the said Raju Singh has also been named in the FIR as one of the members of the group forming unlawful assembly along with the co-accused persons. From the deposition of this witness, it is found that she has specifically named the accused persons, who had gone to her house including Udit Singh, Bilash Singh, Lovely Singh, Ramesh Singh, Lalu Singh, Govind Singh, Banit Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Bilash Singh, Shankar Singh, Tapo Singh, Dinesh Singh, Raju & Balram Singh. She has also admitted that the place of occurrence was in dispute since last 25 years, which is an admitted fact. From the deposition of this witness, it is found that all the accused appellants had visited the house of the informant and set the house on fire, although the name of only two persons are corroborated from the testimonies of the witness, i.e. namely Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh for setting the house on fire and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the involvement of the other accused persons with the aid of section 149 of the IPC and found the guilt of the accused appellants for the offence punishable under section 147, 149, 448 and 435 of IPC and the accused- appellants Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh have also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC inasmuch as this witness categorically in unequivocal words stated that the said Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh had also assaulted 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 this witness and her daughter apart from setting the house ablaze.
22. In view of aforesaid glaring evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution it is found that the non-examination of the I.O. did not cause prejudice to the defence of the appellants. Further no vital contradictions have been brought forth in the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to test the I.O. to ascertain the truthfulness and reliability of the witnesses. The witness P.W.8 is the formal witness who proved the formal FIR written and signed by the then Officer-in-Charge Rajender Choudhery and the same has been marked as Ext.-2 and his endorsement on the FIR has been marked as Ext.-3. This witness further proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.-1/1. , although this witness had been the ignorant of the contents of these documents but in the light of the consistent and uniform depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the charges as set out in the FIR is wholly corroborated in order to substantiate the charges for the offences punishable under sections 147 and 435/149 of the IPC.
23. In order to rebut the case of the prosecution the appellants brought on record several documents namely:-
Ext.-A Certified copy of the report (application under section 144 of Cr.P.C.), Ext.- B- certified copy of formal F.I.R. in Chatra P.S. Case No. 57/2000, Ext. C- endorsement on complaint petition no. 137/2000, Ext. D- certified copy of order-sheet dated 4.12.2000 taking cognizance of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.57 of 2000, Ext. E- certified copy of charge sheet in Huntergunj P.S. Case No. 57/2000, Ext. F- certified copy of order of S.D.M. Chatra in case No. 45/2000, Ext. G- certified copy of notice u/s 144 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 45/2000, Ext. H- certified copy of measurement case No. 19/1999-2000 before C.O. Huntergunj, Chatra, Ext. I- certified copy of Anchal Amin measurement report dated 08.06.2000, Ext. J- certified copy of order in Misc Case No. 19/2000-2001, Ext. K- certified copy of order dated 29.08.96 in T.S Case No. 13/91, Ext. L- certified copy of Decree 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 in T.S. Case No. 13/91.
In addition to the aforesaid documents, one defence witness Wakil Singh (DW-1) being the deed writer and formal witness examined on behalf of the defence simply proved Ext. A which is police report for the proceedings under 144 of the Cr.P.C., Ext. B formal F.I.R. and the endorsement upon the said FIR is Ext. C adduced on behalf of the defence.
24. In fact the appellants wanted to establish that the place of occurrence was not consisting of a constructed house and the land of the place of occurrence was belonging to the appellant parties as the case was decided in their favour which is by and large an admitted fact and therefore these documents do not falsify the case of the prosecution that the appellants by constituting the unlawful assembly went to the place of occurrence and set on fire as evident from the appraisal of the evidences discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. The learned trial court has elaborately appreciated the documents relied upon by the appellants, particularly, Ext.K and Ext.L in para 17 of the judgment and found that these documents did not brush aside the facts proved by the prosecution that the appellants forming the unlawful assembly went to the place of occurrence and set on fire and therefore the charges under sections 147 and 435/149 of the IPC are wholly substantiated.
25. From the testimonies of the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and taking into consideration in a holistic manner, it is well founded that all the accused appellants, by constituting the unlawful assembly, had visited the place of occurrence and set the place of the informant on fire and therefore this Court does not find any irregularity in holding the guilt of the accused appellants for the offence punishable under sections 147 and 435 read with 149 of IPC. It is true that in order to rebut the offence, the defence had brought some documents on record and from the perusal of all these records, it is found that all are related to landed property dispute including order passed in the Title Suit No. 13 / 91(Ext.-K) and the decree, Ext. L and other 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 documents. The defence has tried to show that the place of occurrence was belonging to the accused appellants and therefore there was no question of committing any offence by setting the house on fire. From the defence taken on behalf of the accused appellants, it is manifest that the place of occurrence was in dispute since last 25 years and both parties were on litigating terms and therefore the possibility of committing the offence cannot be ruled out, inasmuch as the testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have consistently deposed that the place of the informant was set on fire and also the witnesses had stated that the accused persons were running away from the place of occurrence after setting the place on fire and amongst them some of them were identified pointedly and specifically by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as discussed elaborately in the foregoing paragraphs. Learned defence counsel has pointed out that no offence under section 147 or the conviction with the aid of 149 is made out, because none of the witnesses had specifically pointed out the name of accused persons, except the informant PW -
7. Further it has also been pointed out that neither the daughter of the informant nor her husband and also nor the I.O. in this case has been examined and their non-examination caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants. All these arguments are not tenable in the eyes of law in view of consistent and uniform depositions of the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, particularly, the informant PW 7 the eyewitness, and PW 6 supported by PW-1, PW- 3 and PW - 4 & PW - 5.
26. From the depositions of the these witnesses, particularly PWs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and PW - 7, it is well founded that the house of the informant was burnt and the informant has categorically named the accused persons involved in the commission of the offence and they have seen them running away from the place of occurrence. P.W.7 identified all the appellants whereas a few witnesses had identified some of them and saw some of them running away from the place of occurrence and they have named in their depositions and therefore 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 the offence of the accused appellants under Section 147, 435 read with section 149 of IPC have been proved. And further it is also found that the charges against the appellants Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh have also been proved under section 323 of the IPC as both of them had assaulted P.W.7 and her daughter and they were also held guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC in addition to the offences punishable under sections 147, 435 read with section 149 of IPC. But so far as the charge under Section 448 of IPC is concerned, the learned trial court has committed error in holding the guilt for the offence of criminal trespass, because once it was held that it was not the dwelling house and after setting ablaze the place of occurrence they ran away from the place of occurrence, therefore the offence under section 448 of committing the house trespass is not proved and substantiated and the conviction under section 448 of the IPC does not hold good, accordingly the conviction under section 448 of the IPC is set aside and the conviction of all the appellants for the offences punishable under section 147 and 435/149 of IPC are upheld. Further this Court also upholds the conviction of the two appellants Awadhesh Singh and Raju Singh for the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC also in addition to the offences punishable under sections 147, 435 read with section 149 of IPC.
27. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that both the parties are on the litigating terms for a long period of time and this occurrence has taken place as far back in the year 2000 and the appellants are suffering with the trauma and miseries of criminal proceeding since last 22 years and there is nothing on record about their criminal history and hence a lenient view is found just and fair in awarding the sentence.
28. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is found that the purpose of justice would be meted out, if the accused appellants are sentenced for a term of the period of sentence already undergone by them, instead of sending them again in jail. Accordingly, this Court imposes sentence of imprisonment to the appellants for the term of 15 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005 the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and further imposes sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand Only) by way of compensation in a composite manner under all the heads collectively upon all the appellants to be given to the victim informant- PW 7 Asha Devi by setting aside the impugned order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Chatra, in S.T. Case No.12 of 2001, arising out of Huntergunj P.S. Case No. 52 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.251 of 2000 against all the appellants.
29. Since all the appellants are on bail, they are given four months time from today to deposit the fine amount as awarded to them by this Court as above in order to give it to the informant victim P.W.7 Asha Devi by way of compensation and in the default of payment of fine, all the appellants will undergo R.I. for a period of one year. Learned trial court is directed to ensure that the sentence of fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousands) as awarded by this Court will be deposited within the stipulated period of time and the amount should be given to the victim by issuing notice to her and in case the victim is traceless or not found or not available for the reasons whatsoever, then the amount should be paid to her kith or kin or her near relative as the learned trial court may think fit and proper and in default of payment of fine as awarded by this Court by the appellants, all the necessary steps should be taken by the learned court below as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellants serves the sentence of one year in default of payment of payment fine. And on the deposit of payment of fine they shall be released forthwith and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the Civil Court concerned within the stipulated period of time. At the moment they deposit the fine amount so awarded they (appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of said fine amount.
30. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence.
16 Cr. Appeal (SJ).240 of 2005
31. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the judgement to the concerned court below for its compliance and needful.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 17.08.2022/NAFR R.Kumar/-