Jharkhand High Court
Anil Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2018
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
12.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast
Track Court No.9, Ranchi, in S.T. No.436 of 2002.
Anil Saw, Son of Prahlad Sah, resident of Village- Barlanga, P.O. and
P.S.- Gola, District - Hazaribagh. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Asha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor .....
By Court:- Heard, Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal assisted by Ms. Asha Kumari, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 12.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.9, Ranchi, in S.T. No.436 of 2002, whereby the sole appellant, Anil Saw has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 448/323/376/511 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable 307 I.P.C. All the sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently. The period already undergone during trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the 'fardbeyan' of the informant, Ugni Devi (P.W.8), recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Ramuchit Singh (P.W.10), on 03.05.2002 at 2.00 A.M., at Village- Banuwadih, wherein the informant has alleged, that in the night after taking dinner, she was sleeping on the cot in her house. Husband of the informant works in Barkakana Railway. In the night at about 11.00 P.M., Anil Saw, resident of Village- Barlanga, who is a wicked man, entered into house of the informant and started outraging the modesty of the informant. When the informant made protest, the accused dragged her forcefully towards him and started removing the saree and also torn the blouse of the informant. When the informant tried to raise brawl, her
-2- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] mouth was closed and was thrashed on the cot by the accused. The accused tried to commit rape upon her by putting his private part into the private part of the informant. Thereafter the informant put more pressure upon the accused and somehow, the informant saved herself and raised brawl. Upon this, the accused/appellant, Anil Saw abused the informant with filthy language and given threatening with dire consequences and also assaulted the informant on her head by 'Dablee' (a sharp-cut weapon), due to which, the informant fell down. In the meantime, son of the informant, namely, Rajendra Bedia and some persons of the neighbour, namely, Sachidanand Bedia, Biswanath Bedia, Pradeep Bedia, Mochiram Bedia came there and they caught-hold of the accused/appellant, Anil Saw. Anil Saw is a strong man and somehow he tried to flee away, but he was again caught by the villagers, who were present there. In apprehending the accused, Anil Saw, he has also sustained some injury. The informant has stated, that she is doing the business of selling vegetables. The informant along with women used to go Barlanga Hat and Station. From there Anil Saw was known to her, as he used to collect rangdari from Barlanga market and also used to tease girls and women openly in the way to Barlanga market. The accused has a gang of criminals and due to fear, no body speaks against him. The villagers informed the chowkidar and thereafter they were planning to go to Police Station, but in the meantime, Police officer reached there. The informant has claimed, that Anil Saw (appellant) has entered into her house for committing rape upon her and because of failure, the appellant/accused has tried to kill her.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Silli P.S. Case No. 23 of 2002 dated 03.05.2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1211 of 2002 under Sections 448/ 323 / 324 /307 and 376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant.
5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide No.37 of 2002 dated 30.05.2002 under Sections 448 /323 / 307 and 376 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant.
6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 12.06.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.08.2002. The charge has been framed against the appellant/accused on 10th September, 2002, under Sections 448, 323, 376/511 and 307 I.P.C., to which the appellant/accused pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.
-3- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004]
7. The prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Sachidanand Manjhi has been examined as P.W.1, Biswanath Manjhi has been examined as P.W.2, Pradeep Bedia has been examined as P.W.3, Chenu Manjhi has been examined as P.W.4, Nakul Mahto has been examined as P.W.5, Balak Ram has been examined as P.W.6, Mochi Ram @ Mochi Bedia has been examined as P.W.7, Ugni Devi, Informant-cum-victim, has been examined as P.W.8, Ms. Veena Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of the informant, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., on 9th May, 2002, has been examined as P.W.9, Ramuchit Singh, Investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.10 and Dr. Md. Enamul Haque, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim-cum-informant has been examined as P.W.11.
The signatures of Sachidanand Manjhi (P.W.1) and Biswanath Manjhi (P.W.2), on the seizure list, have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 1 and 1/1 respectively. The signatures of Biswanath Manjhi (P.W.2) and Sachidanand Manjhi (P.W.1), on the fardbeyan, have been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2 and 1/3 respectively. The statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The fardbeyan of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. Formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. The Police requisition for medical report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. The seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. Entire injury report of the informant, Ugni Devi has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. Entire injury report of the accused/appellant, Anil Saw has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7/1.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 04.11.2003, to which the accused/appellant has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case and he has never attempted to commit rape and in defence he has stated that, while he was going on road, on that day, he was assaulted by the people. But no defence witness or document has been adduced on behalf of the appellant/ defence.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence .
Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/accused, Anil Saw has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
-4- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] trial Court.
10. Heard, Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal, assisted by Ms. Asha Kumari, learned counsels appearing for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the appellant has falsely been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C., as there was no repetition of blow nor any Mens rea on the part of the appellant to kill the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376/ 511 I.P.C. cannot sustain in the eyes of law, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar now Jharkhand, as reported in 2006(8) SCC 560.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the case has been instituted in the year 2002 and since then, about 16 years have elapsed and the appellant has suffered rigours of trial for about 16 years, as such, appellant may be acquitted of the charge and conviction passed by the learned trial court.
11. Heard Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based upon material available on record, as such, the learned trial has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, as the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of prosecution are consistent in their evidence and the injury report of the informant, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 and the injury report of the appellant which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 /1 are sufficient to convict the appellant by the learned trial court, as the same are consistent and in consonance with prosecution case.
12. Heard, Mr. shankar Lal Agrawal, assisted by Ms. Asha Kumari, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the First Information Report, framing of charge, the evidence of eleven prosecution witnesses and the prosecution Exhibits upto Exhibit-7/1 and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
This Court has scrutinized the evidence of all prosecution witnesses. Sachidanand Manjhi has been examined as P.W.1. This witness has reached the place of occurrence after hearing brawl raised by the informant and this witness is a hearsay witness, who has been informed about the occurrence by the informant. The signature of this witness (P.W.1) on the seizure list of the torn blouse has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. This witness has
-5- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] categorically stated in Para-8 of his cross-examination, that he has not seen the appellant tearing the blouse of the informant, but he has seen the appellant doing something forcefully and scuffle took place between them. This witness has not stated anything, which constitutes an offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C., as this witness has not found the appellant in naked condition nor he has stated, that the informant was also disrobed at that time.
Biswanath Manjhi has been examined as P.W.2. This witness is also a hearsay witness, who went to the place of occurrence after hearing the brawl of the informant and he is one of the signatories to the seizure list and has proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. This witness, during his cross-examination in para-9, has categorically stated that he has seen the accused/ appellant, Anil Saw in tied condition, but has not seen him doing any incident. This witness has proved his signature on the 'fardbeyan' along with signature of Sachidanand Manjhi as Exhibits-1/2 and 1/3 respectively. During cross-examination, this witness has stated, that statement was recorded by the Police and on direction of the Police, he has put his signature and he has no knowledge, that what the Police has written over the same.
Pradeep Bedia has been examined as P.W.3. This witness is nephew of the informant and has alleged that, while the appellant was trying to commit rape upon his aunt, she made protest and raised brawl. This witness has seen teasing of his aunt and saved his aunt from Anil Saw, who has also tried to assault this witness by means of 'Daw', and tried to flee away, but caught by villagers and thereafter Chowkidar was called upon. This witness has also not stated, that the appellant was in naked condition or his clothes were not properly dressed nor he has stated that his aunt was unrobed by the appellant nor he has seen his aunt in unrobed condition. This witness has stated in Para-10 of his cross-examination that on the fateful day, his aunt has not gone to sell vetables at Barkakana, rather this witness and other persons, who were present in the meeting, have seen the appellant entering into the house of the informant at 6-7 P.M., but they did not ask any question, either from the appellant or from the informant regarding entry or arrival of the appellant to the house of the informant.
Chenu Manjhi has been examined as P.W.4. He is also a hearsay witness, who went to the house of the informant on brawl raised by the informant and saw the informant sustaining bleeding injury on her head. The informant is wife of his younger brother. This witness has categorically stated in Para-6 of his cross- examination that the villagers disclosed, that Anil Saw has entered into the house of the informant at 8.15
-9 P.M.
-6- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] Nakul Mahto has been examined as P.W.5. He is also a hearsay witness, who went to the house of the informant after hearing brawl raised by Ugni Devi (informant). This witness has stated in Para-8 of his cross-examination, that on fateful night, the elder and younger son of the informant were not present in the house, but this witness has also not stated anything about disrobing of the cloth of the appellant or the informant.
Balak Ram has been examined as P.W.6. He is also a hearsay witness, who went to the place of occurrence after hearing the brawl raised by the informant and saw the informant having bleeding injury on her head and her blouse was also torn. This witness has stated, that they called the 'Chowkidar' after apprehending the accused and the accused was handed-over to the Police subsequently. This witness has categorically stated, that the informant is his sister-in-law. This witness has tried to exaggerate the prosecution case in Para-7 of his cross-examination, where he has stated, that he has seen the appellant (Anil Saw) was committing rape, is not believable to this Court, as other witnesses have not said so nor this witness is the person who came the spot first. This witness has further stated that, while the appellant was committing rape, he along with Biswanath, Satinath and others were present, who have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 1, but have never stated this version and fact during testimony.
Mochi Ram @ Mochi Bedia has been examined as P.W.7. This witness is also a hearsay witness, who reached the place of occurrence after hearing brawl raised by the informant. He saw the informant sustaining injury on her head and her blouse was torn. The accused was apprehended by the co-villagers and thereafter he asked the informant who has disclosed, that the accused/appellant was trying to commit rape upon her. This witness is a next door neighbour of the informant, but this witness has never stated, that the appellant was without any cloth or the informant was disrobed, as such, the ingredient for constituting an offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. is lacking in the present case.
Ugni Devi, Informant-cum-victim has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has stated that, while she was sleeping in her house after taking dinner, Anil Saw (appellant) entered into her house and started teasing her. She has further stated that, when she pushed away Anil Saw, he assaulted her on head by 'Daw' and thereafter he tried to commit rape upon her by inserting his private part into the private part of the informant. On brawl raised by this witness along with her younger son, the co-villagers and brother- in-law came there and thereafter the accused, Anil Saw was apprehended in the house of the informant, who was handed-over to the Police subsequently. This witness has further stated, that she was medically examined on the requisition made by the Police at Silli Hospital and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate. This witness has categorically stated in Para-8 of her cross-
-7- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] examination, that she was not knowing Anil Saw prior to the occurrence and she saw Anil Saw for the first time on the fateful night. This witness has further stated in Para-10 of her cross- examination that her statement was recorded by the Police, who asked her to put right thumb impression and thereafter she has acted upon the direction of the villagers. Anil Saw was assaulted and tied by the villagers, but she has not seen any bleeding injury on the head of Anil Saw.
This Court has examined the evidence of P.W.8 (Ugni Devi), informant of the case, who has exaggerated her version in her deposition in the Court. In the First Information Report, she has categorically stated, that the appellant after being disrobed, also disrobed the informant and was trying to commit rape upon her by inserting his private part into the private part of the informant, but during her deposition, this witness has stated, that the appellant has committed rape by inserting his private part into the private part of her. Although this Court has perused the Exhibit-7 and the deposition of P.W.11 (Dr. Md. Enamul Haque), who has not given any finding, so far allegation, which has been levelled by the informant (P.W.8) during her deposition before the learned trial court, rather Doctor has only found lacerated wound of 1" x ½ x scalp deep on the right side of the head. Doctor has not found any other injury on the person of the victim, Ugni Devi except on her head, as stated in Para-4 of his cross-examination.
Under the aforesaid circumstances and coupled with the fact that the Investigating officer (P.W.10) has categorically stated in Para-18 of his cross- examination, that Ugni Devi (P.W.8) has alleged before him that the accused/appellant has tried to commit rape upon her, but he was unsuccessful in his attempt.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion, that the version of the informant is to be considered after due caution and care. It appears from perusal of the evidence that the informant (P.W.8) has a tendency to exaggerate her case by developing the prosecution story, against the contents of the First Information Report.
Ms. Veena Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded statement of the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9th May, 2002, has been examined as P.W.9 and proved the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2. This Court has perused the Exhibit-2, where the informant has alleged, that the appellant has tried to commit rape upon her and assaulted her, causing, unconsciousness. This statement of the informant, which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., shows some contradiction from the contents of the First Information Report, as well as the deposition of the informant as P.W.8. Nowhere the informant has alleged, that she became unconscious after being assaulted by the informant by means of 'Daw' on her head, rather consistent prosecution case is that, when the appellant tried to commit rape upon the informant, informant saved herself and on protest, the appellant assaulted the informant on her head by means of 'Daw'
-8- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] (a sharp-cut weapon) causing bleeding injury and thereafter the informant raised brawl and on the basis of that villagers and relatives reached to the place of occurrence and they apprehended the appellant, Anil Saw.
Ramuchit Singh, Investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.10. This witness has proved his hand-writing and signature, on the 'fardbeyan' as Exhibit-3 and the Formal First Information Report as Exhibit-4 and the Police requisition for medical treatment of the informant as Exhibit-5. This witness has stated, that he has seen the injury on the person of the appellant, who was apprehended by the co-villagers. This witness has proved the seizure list of the torn blouse as Exhibit-6. This witness has further stated, that on hearing brawl, during patrolling, the Police reached to the place of occurrence, but at that time, the torn blouse was not handed-over to the Police, rather it was found in torn condition worn by the informant. The witness has stated that at the time of recording 'fardbeyan', this witness (P.W.10) has not seized any article from the house of the informant. This witness has further stated, that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9th May, 2002 after visiting place of the occurrence and further all the witnesses have stated before the Investigating officer, that they reached the place of occurrence on hearing brawl. This witness has categorically stated, in Para-18 of his cross-examination, that the informant (Ugni Devi) has stated before him, that the appellant, Anil Saw was trying to commit rape upon her, but he was unsuccessful in his attempt. This witness has further stated, that since there was an attempt to commit rape, that is the reason, this witness being the Investigating officer has not issued medical requisition to establish this fact.
Dr. Md. Enamul Haque, has been examined as P.W.11. He found injury on the person of the informant, on the head, but no injury was found on any other part of the body. He has also examined appellant, Anil Saw, and has found five injuries on the person and the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7/1.
13. This Court has perused and scrutinized the evidence. The prosecution case is, that the accused/appellant entered into house of the informant, caught- hold of her and tried to commit rape upon her, but when he became unsuccessful, appellant has assaulted the informant on her head by means of 'daw' (a sharp-cut weapon). So far as allegation of Section 448 I.P.C., is concerned, which is punishment for house tress-pass, the evidence is consistent, as the appellant has been caught on the spot by the villagers. The prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, but nothing
-9- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] has been elucidated by the defence, while cross-examining the prosecution- witnesses, so far as conviction for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. is concerned, as such, the conviction passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 448 I.P.C. is affirmed and accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned trial court for rigorous imprisonment for one year is also being affirmed.
14. So far as charge and conviction of the appellant for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution evidence has fully supported the case of the prosecution, as such, this Court affirms the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 I.P.C. and also affirms the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court for one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.
15. So far as charge and conviction of the appellant for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, this Court has found, that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that there was no repetition of blow or any mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the informant.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has rightly submitted that, though the appellant was having 'Daw' (a sharp cut weapon) in his hand, but the same has not been used repeatedly by the appellant, even nothing was there to cause any hindrance, Had the appellant has such intention to commit the offence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has rightly drawn attention of this Court towards the injury, which has been sustained by the informant, as has been found by the Doctor (P.W.11). Exhibit-7 do suggest about lacerated wound 1"x1/2"x scalp deep on right side, of the head of the informant, which is simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt object and such injury has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7.
On such premises, this Court is of the view that instead of convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C., it would be proper and appropriate that the appellant be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and the sentence imposed by the learned trial court of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, is being modified as period already undergone during trial, which is approximately two years.
This Court has also perused the evidence of charge and conviction under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. of the appellant is concerned.
From perusal of the First Information Report, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 and the deposition of the informant as P.W.8 and the
-10- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] medical evidence which has been marked as Exhibit-7, this Court is conscious of the fact that there is exaggeration in the version of the informant. The informant has categorically stated in her 'fardbeyan' that the appellant was trying to commit rape by undressing himself and by disrobing the lady to insert his private part into the private part of the informant and subsequently in her statement recorded after six days under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that rape has been committed by the appellant, but during investigation, she has categorically stated before the Investigating officer, who has been examined as P.W.10 and has categorically stated, in Para-18 of his cross- examination, that the informant has stated before him that, the appellant tried to commit rape upon her, but was unsuccessful and that is the reason no medical requisition has been issued by him for examination of the victim with regard to commission of the offence of rape, as stated by the Investigating officer (P.W.10) in Para-29 of cross-examination.
This Court has also scrutinized the evidence of the other witnesses from P.W.1 to P.W.7, but none of the witnesses have said that they have seen the appellant in disrobed condition nor they have seen the informant in disrobed condition, rather the evidence, which has been brought on record, is that the informant was wearing blouse, which was torn and the accused/appellant was caught-hold by the villagers and, as such, in view of the judgment reported in Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar now Jharkhand, reported in 2006(8) SCC 560 (supra), this Court is of the opinion that in absence of any consistent evidence with respect to the attempt to commit rape, the appellant be convicted under Section 354 I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant, as at the time of occurrence, the maximum punishment which can be awarded to the convict under Section 354 I.P.C. was two years and as such, instead of sentencing the appellant for two years, the appellant is directed to deposit a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) before the learned trial court which will be released in favour of the informant-cum-victim of the case, Ugni Devi (P.W.8) after due verification.
The appellant, Anil Saw is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) before the learned trial court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The learned trial court, after depositing such amount by the appellant, will issue notice to the informant, Ugni Devi (P.W.8) and in case of Ugni Devi is not found then after proper verification of the legal heirs and successor of Ugni Devi, the said amount will handed-over.
The bail bonds of the appellant are hereby cancelled by directing him to comply
-11- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] the order/judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The learned trial court will not take any legal action for eight weeks after receipt of a copy of this judgment and in case, the appellant does not deposit the said amount, the learned trial court is directed to take all coercive methods to apprehend the appellant to serve rest of the sentence. In that case, the appellant will serve sentence for a period of three years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and 2 years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently in that event.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant Criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in charge and conviction under Sections 376/511, 307 I.P.C. by convicting the appellant under Sections 354 and 324 I.P.C.
16. If the appellant deposits the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) before the learned trial court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, his sentence will be considered to be period already undergone by the appellant which is approximately for two years, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
17. In the result, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with modification, as stated above.
18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 23rd August, 2018.
sandeep/