Jharkhand High Court
Baldeo Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1
Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 565 of 2004
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 865 of 2004
---
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial Nos. 333/94 & 24/03 corresponding to Jaridih P.S. Case No. 90 of 1993, Bermo at Tenughat, Jharkhand).
--------
1. Baldeo Manjhi
2. Rohin Manjhi
3. Dhena Manjhi (1 to 3 are appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 565 of 2004)
4. Rijhu Manjhi
5. Niranjan Ghashi (4 & 5are appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 865 of 2004) ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand (in both the appeals) ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'B LE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
-------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
Order No. 08 : Dated: 05th January, 2022
Both the appeals have been preferred by the five appellants, namely, Baldeo Manjhi, Rohin Manjhi, Dhena Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 565 of 2004 and Rijhu Manjhi and Niranjan Ghashi of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 865 of 2004 against the common judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No. 333 of 1994/ 24 of 2003, whereby and where under the learned court below has found guilty and convicted the appellants Baldeo Manjhi, Rohin Manjhi, Ghena (Dhena) Manjhi of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 565 of 2004 u/s 148, 307/149, 326/149, 379/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants to undergo R.I. for two years for the 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 offence u/s 148 of IPC and five years RI for the offence u/s 307/149 of IPC and three years R.I. for the offence under sections 326/149 of IPC and two years R.I. for the offence u/s 379 / 149 of IPC and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently and the appellants Rijhu Manjhi and Niranjan Ghashi of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 865 of 2004 are held guilty and convicted u/s 147, 307/149, 323/149, 379/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence u/s 147 of IPC and 323/149 of IPC and five years S.I. for the offence u/s 307/149 of IPC and two year S.I. for the offence u/s 379 / 149 of IPC and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stating the prosecution story as unfolded in the fardbeyan by informant Ashok Bhagat recorded by the ASI K.P. Singh of Jaridih Police Station in the district of Bokaro (Jharkhand) on 06.11.1993 on 21.30 hours at referral Hospital Jainamore ward is as under:
The informant alleged that while he was returning along with his son Santosh Kumar Jaiswal and his co-villager Prafull Bhagat after selling readymade cloths and sarees from the market then at about 6.00 p.m. when he reached near the small bushes then all of a sudden 6-7 persons came out from behind the Banyan tree and Guleshwar Manjhi had given a lathi blow on the left thumb of his hand as a result of which his cycle fell down. Thereafter, he saw that Rohin Manjhi armed with Chhura, Ghena Manjhi armed with Chhura, Rijhu Majhi armed with lathi, Niranjan Ghansi armed with lathi and Baldeo Manjhi armed with Farsa surrounded him and they started assaulting him with their respective weapons in their hands. The aforesaid accused persons had also assaulted his son Santosh Kumar and Prafull Bhagat from their lathi. It is further alleged that all the accused persons had taken the cloths, cash of Rs. 800/- and H.M.T. wrist watch "Kohinoor" from the possession of the informant Ashok Bhagat and the aforesaid accused persons had also taken away the readymade cloths, Sarees, Gamchha, Bed-sheets, blouse etc. from Prafull Bhagat and they had also 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 taken Rs. 500/- in cash and H.M.T. wrist watch from Prafull Bhagat and the aforesaid accused persons fled away on the bicycles of the informant Ashok Bhagat, Prafull Bhagat and Santosh Kumar Jaiswal. The alleged occurrence is said to have committed because of land dispute.
The aforesaid injures were brought at Referal Hospital Jainamore, where the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant Ashok Bhagat was recorded by A.S.I., K.P. Singh of Jaridih, P.S. On which the police has registered the case as Jaridih P.S. Case No. 90/93 and the Police after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons on which the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of the case and transferred it to the court of S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat for commitment, who on 21.09.1994 committed this case to the Court of Sessions.
3. Having received the record of complaint, the learned trial court framed the charge against the accused appellants for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 307/149, 325/149, 326/149, 379/149 of IPC.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence under which the appellants of both the appeals have been convicted accordingly.
4. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants:
5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the main culprit was Guleshwar Manjhi as stated by P.W. 1 Prafull Bhagat, P.W. - 8 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, P.W. - 10 Ashok Kumar Bhagat. Further, it has been pointed out that no specific overt act has been mentioned against any of the appellants for causing injuries in order to commit murder of the victims. Although, it has been stated that Niranjan Ghansi and Rijhu Manjhi had been holding lathi, Rohin Manjhi and Dhena Manjhi have had knife and 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 Baldeo had farsa and Ruplal had pistol, but, no charge of inflicting assault has been attributed against any of them. It has also been contended that out of three injured persons two of them P.W. 8 & 10 were related to each other and there are previous enmity between informant and appellants and although the witnesses have taken the names of the appellants, but, they did not state that the appellants had assaulted them and the third injured persons namely P.W. 1 has failed to identify the appellants as the miscreants involved in the offence. Thus, it has been submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity by the P.W. 8 & 10. It is also submitted that the allegations of assault has also not been proved against the appellants and thus the allegations of snatching away the articles also becomes doubtful and false. It has also been pointed out that the I.O. in this case has also not been examined by the prosecution and thus it caused serious prejudice to the accused appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences available on record and there is no legal evidence to discard the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. All the injured witnesses had consistently and uniformly supported the case of prosecution and therefore their conviction with the aid of section 149 is substantiated and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Findings
7. Having heard the learned defense counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State, perused the documents available on record including the lower court record.
5Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004
8. P.W. - 1 Praffull Bhagat is said to be one of the injured witnesses and he deposed in a very categorical manner vide para-2 that there were eight to ten offenders, who had attacked upon them, but he identified only one Guleshwar Manjhi (who did not face the trial in the court below with these appellants as he was said to have been absconding), who is not one amongst the five appellants, even in the court while he was being examined during the course of the trial clearly in para 7 of his deposition declined/and refused to claim to identify any one of the appellants, although, in para- 8, this witness PW- 1 stated that he knew all the residents of village Gopalpur and these appellants were also the residents of Gopalpur, but, he did not identify any one of the appellants or take specific name of any one of the appellants, of both the appeals, about their involvement in the commission of the offence. It is further found that this witness had sustained simple injury, which is evident from the depositions of P.W.- 11 Dr. J.S. Tirkey, who had examined, this P.W. - 1 and found vide Ext.3/1 one lacerated wound over his head about 1"x1/4"x deep up to the scalp. According to P.W.-11, this injury was simple in nature and, therefore, the charges of either attempt to commit murder or to cause grievous injuries are neither corroborated nor inferred.
9. It is found from the testimonies of this witness P.W. - 1 that the persons, who have been named as Guleshwar Manjhi, was the main culprit and he did not face the trial along with these accused appellants and, therefore, the charges are neither corroborated for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC nor u/s 326 of IPC. In this view of the matter, learned defence counsel has pointed out that Section 38 of IPC, which reads as under
"38. Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences.--Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
Illustration A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide."
In the light of aforesaid provision, vis-à-vis appreciation of depositions of P.W. - 1, it is found that these appellants charged with the offences for assaulting the injured persons P.W. 1, P.W. 8 & P.W. 10 including this witness P.W. - 1 is not corroborated and, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 307/149, 326/149 of IPC did not get corroborated as categorical evidence is against the co-accused Guleshwar Manjhi.
10. P.W. - 2 Dhirendra Nath Sao is a hearsay witness, who categorically stated in para - 8 of the cross-examination that he did not see the occurrence and confronted with his earlier statement given before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and the prosecution has failed to examine the I.O. in this case and, therefore, the accused persons have been debarred to bring out the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to disbelieve his versions. This witness has also categorically stated that all the accused persons were the co-villagers and he knew them and he had identified the signatures of himself and P.W.10 Ashok Bhagat on the Fardbeyan marked as Ext.1 & 1/1
11. PW - 3 Niranjan Munda and PW - 5 Sanker Munda have been declared hostile.
12. PW - 4 Satish Prasad Mahto is a hearsay witness who has stated in his cross-examination that there was a land dispute between both the parties including the prosecution party and the accused appellant since last 15 years but did not state about any specific role of the any of the appellants in the commission of the offence to attract/support the case of the prosecution for the offences punishable under section 307 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He said that the miscreants had looted the clothes as disclosed by the informant Ashok Bhagat.
7Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004
13. P.W.6 Ishwar Chandra and P.W. - 7 Mohan Ram Mahto are also the hearsay witnesses and they have stated that they came to know from P.W.10 - Ashok Bhagat and P.W.8 - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal respectively that the miscreants after assaulting them looted the clothes etc. In the cross-examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there had been a case and counter case between them for a long period of time and hence, they are highly interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies are not reliable in absence of any specific evidence of involvement of any one of the appellants in the commission of the offences u/s 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The witness P.W.7 was also confronted with his earlier statements given in para - 13 of the cross-examination, which was given by him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police, but, since the I.O. has not been examined in this case and, therefore, serious prejudice is said to have been caused to the appellants to bring out the contradictions in his statement and as such cross-examination of this witness has become redundant in view of the non-examination of I.O. which caused grossly unfair to the appellants.
14. PW - 8 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal is also said to have been injured by lathi by the co-accused Guleshwar Manjhi who did not face the trial with these appellants, but, he has identified among 8 to 9 persons, these appellants Niranjan Ghansi, Baldeo Manjhi, Dhena Manjhi, Rijhu Manjhi and Rohin Manjhi along with one Guleshwar Manjhi were also present. He had also stated in para 4 that the accused Baldeo Manjhi was armed with farsa, Rohin and Dhena were armed with knife and Rijhu and Niranjan were armed with lathi, but, did not state even whisper as to whether they had assaulted them or not and, therefore, their presence in the commission of offence has been corroborated by this witness in a very specific term, although, the assault by these appellants have not been specifically stated in his deposition rather this injured witness pointedly stated that it was Guleshwar Manjhi who had assaulted him by Lahti and after that their clothes bicycles, 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 watch, cash etc. were looted by miscreants. It has been clearly admitted by this witness in the cross examination that the accused persons were known to him from childhood and it is admitted case of the prosecution that there was a land dispute between them and attention of this witness has been drawn to several litigations between them which have been brought on record from the defence side also, although this witness had shown his ignorance about the same. Further, in the cross-examination in paras - 16 & 17, this witness stated that he was assaulted, but, he did not undergo for any treatment and the charges of sections 307 and 326 of IPC are not supported.
15. P.W. - 9 Abhi Bilash Prasad Jaiswal is also a hearsay witness and he is the full brother of the injured Ashok Bhagat P.W. - 10. The defence in the cross examination has been taken that due to previous enmity, these accused appellants have been implicated in this case. This witness has also stated that there had been a dispute between them including one title suit and this witness has also stated in para - 3 of the cross-examination that there had been a case against them for committing the mischief of fire.
16. P.W.-10 Ashok Bhagat is the injured person and informant in this case. This witness has stated in para - 3 that he has been assaulted by the accused Guleshwar Manjhi, who did not face the trial along with these accused appellants and the said Guleshwar Manjhi had assaulted him on his head by knife and also on the head and Prafful Bhagat was also assaulted by 8-9 persons, and after assaulting them the offenders took their bicycle, readymade garments, watch, cash etc. but he did not specifically named any one of the appellants, but, he stated that the accused appellants - Niranjan Ghansi, Rijhu Manjhi were holding lathi in their hand, Rohin Manjhi and and Dhena Manjhi were holding knives and Baldeo Manjhi was holding Farsa and one Roop Lal Tiwary, who did not face the trial along with these accused appellants were holding pistol. This witness P.W.10 has identified Fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.2. In the cross-examination, it appears that the defence has taken plea of enmity on the basis of 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 several litigations between accused-appellants and informant people, including S.T. No. 99/97 in Jaridih P.S. Case No.31 of 91, Jaridih P.S. Case No.99 of 90, Case No. 50 of 90 u/s 144 Cr.P.C. Case No. 356 of 90 u/s 144 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. In absence of cross-examination of the I.O., all the civil cases pending between the parties remained unverified and, thus, a serious prejudice has been caused to the accused appellants for the possibility of false implication in this case, because of severe litigating terms between them.
17. P.W. - 10 is also said to have been injured by the assault of one Guleshwar Manjhi and the Doctor who has been examined as P.W. - 11 Dr. J.S. Tirkey had medically examined this witness and found the following injuries vide Ext.3 on him :
(i) Sharp cutting wound over right side of head about 2 ½" x ¼ " x deep into scalp muscle, wound was red in colour bleeding.
(ii) Lacerated wound over back of head about 1"x1/4"x deep upto scalp muscle.
(iii) Swelling over right shoulder joint about 1"x1/2"
over right shoulder.
(iv) Diffused swelling over left thumb.
It is opined by doctor that the injuries No.1 was grievous and caused by sharp cutting weapon like farsa and injury Nos. (ii), (iii) &
(iv) appears to have been caused by hard and blunt substance, may be by lathi. Since, as per the version of this witness and the testimonies of P.W.8 and P.W.1, it was one Guleshwar Manjhi who had assaulted them and no specific statement of assault has been against any one of the appellants and, hence, the charges of sections 307 and 326 are not corroborated against these appellants
18. P.W. - 12 Bal Mukund Upadhyay is an advocate's clerk, who had identified the hand writing of one Kamta Prasad Singh, the then ASI and I.O., of this case, of Jaridih Police Station on the case diary from paras 1 to 119 vide Ext.4. In the cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that he did not know the said Kamta Prasad Sinha, nor he had an opportunity to work with him and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring the major facts of the case diary on the 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 record as legally admissible evidence to corroborate the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the I.O. has not been examined in this case, but, the entire case diary was allowed to be exhibited. The prosecution and the learned trial court have relied upon the notings in the case diary although the maker of the case diary did not proof the correctness of the recordings in the case diary. Further, the non- examination of the I.O. did not provide the opportunity to ascertain the correctness of the recordings in the case diary as the same has not been tested by cross examining the I.O. This Court is unable to understand that as to why the prosecution did not choose to examine any police personnel. It may be true that in spite of several steps taken, the prosecution could not procure the attendance of I.O. who investigated the case and submitted the Charge- Sheet and in such a precarious situation by looking to the case diary and relying on the same in support of the prosecution case, serious prejudice to the appellants has been caused and such action has occasioned a grave injustice.
19. On the other hand, D.W.- 1 Satyendra Kumar Sinha has been examined on behalf of the defence and one certified copy of the FIR has been brought on record, which is marked as Ext-A. From the perusal of Ext. -A, it is found that P.W.- 10 Ashok Bhagat, P.W. - 9 Abhi Bilash and others were accused in a case for the offences, inter alia, under section 307 of the IPC instituted by the appellants people in order to show the enmity with the informant people. Apart from the oral witness examined on behalf of the defence, several documentary evidences have also been brought on record, i.e. Ext.- B is the certified copy of the written application of Jaridih P.S. Case No.31 of 91, Ext.-C- certified copy of application before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat Case No.356 of 1990 and certified copy of the order dated 13.8.1990 vide Ext.-D and Ext.-E the Sub Divisional Magistrate order in Case No. 50 of 1990 under Section 144 of Cr.P.C between Ashok Bhagat and Baldeo Manjhi. Ext- F series, namely ,F,F/1,F/2,F/3 are the notices of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in various cases between Ashok 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 Bhagat and Baldeo Manjhi. Ext. - G is the certified copy of the charge- sheet of Jaridih P.S. Case No.31 of 91 and Ext- I is the certified copy the charge against Ashok Bhagat & Ors.
All these documents indicate about the existence of severe litigating terms between the parties and showing inimical terms between them and, therefore, the testimonies of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution have been appraised in the forgoing paragraphs in the light of the rulings as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases.
20. Recapitulating the entire evidences it is founded that it is the admitted case of enmity between both the parties including the prosecution party and the accused appellants and as such the witnesses are admittedly inimical. Accordingly, after evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, it is found that the intention or knowledge are to be drawn from the circumstances in order to appreciate the convictions, inter-alia, u/ss 307 and 326 of IPC. From this point of view, the injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted upon the victim P.W. 10 and the informant P.W. 1- Prafull Bhagat & P.W. 8- Santosh Kumar Jaiswal are also said to have sustained the injuries and no injury report of P.W. 8 has been brought into the evidence as he himself has admitted in his deposition that he had not undergone for medical treatment. So far as the injuries of the P.W. 10- Ashok Bhagat is concerned, which is on record vide Ext. 3 by which it appears that he had sustained grievous injury on the head and he categorically stated in para 3 of his deposition that he has been assaulted by knife by co-accused Guleshwar Manjhi who is not the appellant in any of the two appeals. There is no specific allegation have been attributed in the deposition of P.W. 10 with respect to any of these five appellants of the said two Appeals including Baldeo Manjhi, Rohin Manjhi, Dhena Manjhi, Rijhu Manjhi and Niranjan Ghashi. Although, the witness P.W. 10 deposed that they were holding weapons, but, no overt act has been attributed by any of them as deposed by the this injured witness P.W. 10- Ashok Bhagat. Therefore, 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 there is no specific allegation of assault by any of the appellants as per the informant injured witness P.W. 10. Similarly, the another injured witness is P.W. 1- Prafull Bhagat who has also stated that he had identified only one accused Guleshwar Manjhi and none of the appellants have been identified although they are resident of the same village and the accused persons were known to this witness, but he could not identified any of them. Thus, these two important witnesses, who have been injured substantiate only the presence of the accused appellants, but, their involvement in the assault could not be specifically ascertained. Further, P.W. 8 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal has also stated in para 6 of his examination-in-chief candidly that he has been injured in the alleged occurrence by Guleshwar Manjhi (none amongst the appellants). Although, he stated that the appellants were present along with weapons. But, he did not depose even the slightest overact by any one of the appellants and therefore, the charges for the offence punishable u/s 307 and 326 of IPC could not be substantiated against these appellants. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is altered as they are found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC against these appellants. It is not the case of 307 and 326 of IPC with respect of Rohin Manjhi, Dhena Manjhi and Baldeo Manjhi rather it is a case u/s 323/149 of IPC and the appellants Niranjan Ghasi & Rijhu Manjhi were also found guilty u/s 323 r/w section 149 of IPC. So far as the offences in other two sections are concerned i.e. section 147 & section 379 read with section 149 IPC is concerned it is found that all the witnesses have consistently and uniformly deposed that they were present at the place of occurrence along with the main accused Guleshwar Manjhi and all of them consistently deposed about the snatching of the readymade garments, watch, cycle, cash being carried by the victims P.W.1, P.W.8 & P.W.10 at the time of the occurrence and, therefore, their guilt are substantiated by the consistent and coherent deposition of the witnesses with respect to the offence punishable u/s 147, 379 r/w 149 IPC.
21. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court comes to the 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 conclusion that the appellants nos. 1- Baldeo Manjhi, 2 - Rohin Manjhi and 3-Dhena Manjhi in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 565 of 2004 and the appellants Rijhu Manjhi and Niranjan Ghasi of Cri. Appeal (SJ) No. 865 of 2004 are found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 147, 323, 379 read with section 149 of IPC and accordingly, all the said five appellants of both the said appeals namely, Baldeo Manjhi, Rohin Manjhi, Dhena Manjhi, Rijhu Manjhi and Niranjan Ghasi are convicted u/s 147, 323, 379 r/w 149 of IPC. So far as the punishment is concerned it has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties were having litigating terms for a long period of time and this is a case of the year 1993 and, thus, more than 20 years are gone when the appellants are suffering from trauma and hardships of criminal proceedings. Further, there is nothing on record about their criminal history. It has also been pointed out that the appellants at the time of facing trial at their middle age and some of them namely Baldoe Manjhi , Niranjan Ghanshi were about 50 years old and, therefore, in this view of the matter a lenient view may be taken .
22. Having taken into consideration all the facts and also about the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants it is found that the appellants Baldeo Manjhi, Rohin Manjhi & Dhena Manjhi have already remained in jail for more than one month and Rijhu Manjhi and Nirajan Ghasi had remained in jail for more than four months. Therefore no useful purpose would be served to send them again in jail and this Court under the circumstances of the case finds it just and fair to have taken liberal and sympathetic approach. In the backdrop, taking into consideration the attending circumstances all the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and further sentence of composite fine under all the counts collectively by way of compensation in order to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by each of the appellants to both the injured P.W. 10 - Ashok Bhagat and P.W. 1 - Prafull Bhagat 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 565 & 865 of 2004 separately, failing which the appellants shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
23. Since, all the appellants are on bail they are given six months time to deposit the fine by way of compensation to P.W. 1 Prafull Bhagat and P.W. 10 Ashok Bhagat and in case of default of fine they shall go S.I. for six months under all the counts collectively.
24. The amount of fine may be deposed in the Government exchequer through the concerned Nazarat of the civil court in order to pay the fine to the injured P.W. 1 Prafull Bhagat and P.W. 10 Ashok Bhagat by way of compensation.
25. The learned trial court is directed to ensure the amount of fine, if so deposited, is disbursed to the victim P.W. 1 Prafull Bhagat and P.W. 10 Ashok Bhagat by issuing proper notices to them. Further, the learned concerned court is also directed that if any one of the victims, namely, P.W. 1 Prafull Bhagat or P.W. 10 Ashok Bhagat (informant) is not found available for whatsoever reason may be, then the fine amount so deposited by the appellants shall be disbursed to their close/near relatives/ kith & kin as deem fit and proper.
26. In case of default of payment of fine learned trial court is directed to take all necessary and effective steps that the appellants serve sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months.
27. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial court to do the needful.
28. The appeal is dismissed with modification in judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 333 of 94/24 of 2003 as above.
29. Let the LCR along with the copy of this judgment be sent back to the concerned court forthwith for needful.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 05.01.2022/NAFR MM/-