Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006 and order of
sentence dated 24.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the
Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge- FTC Vith, East Singhbhum
at Jameshedpur)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006
-------
Vinod Kumar Rajak, son of late Gopi Ram, resident of Balvihar, near
Kunj Nagar, old Sonari, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East-
Singhbhum.
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2007
-------
Santosh Kumar Razak, son of late Suresh Ram, resident of Kadma
Uliyam, Sadhu Path, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur,
District-East-Singhbhum.
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. J. Majumdar, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Majumdar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Spl. PP
Mr. Prabhu Dayal, Agrawal, Spl. PP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
-------
th
Order No. 19/Dated 25 February, 2025
JUDGMENT
Both the appeals have arisen in the wake of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against these two appellants namely, Vinod Kumar Rajak, appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 and Santosh Kumar Razak appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2007 by which both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 120-B of the IPC. Challenge in the appeal:
2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under sections 307 along with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months and further directed to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 120-B of the IPC. Prosecution Story:
3. The prosecution story is based on the Fardbayan of the informant, Kishore Kumar Mandal @ Raju, PW-5 whose statement was recorded by the S.I. on 22.04.2002 in TMH Emergency Ward at about 11:00 O‟Clock in the night. The informant PW-5, Kishore Kumar Mandal @ Raju stated that on 22.04.2002 at about 10:00 PM, the informant was in his house when one person said "open the door, we are from Rani Kudar and to participate in dance program. We have a group and some discussion is required", upon which, he opened the door and found his neighbours, namely, Rajesh Rajak, Binod Rajak and Santosh Kumar and three unknown persons, out of whom, one was tall and two having medium height.
4. It is alleged that they were armed with pistol and opened fire.
The bullet hit him on the chest. He fell down raising alarm. His „Bhagina‟ Amit Mandal rushed to the spot and the accused persons also shot him at the back. It has further been alleged that the accused persons fled away and entered in the house of one Binod Rajak and Rajesh Rajak. The motive of the said crime was the protest made by the informant in respect of getting pandal erected on the disputed land of Mahadeo Mahto. Due to all these reasons, accused persons by hatching conspiracy to commit murder shot fire upon him and his Bhagina Amit Mandal.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant PW-5, a formal F.I.R was drawn and the case was registered being Kadma P.S. Case No. 45 of 2002 which was registered under Sections 447, 307, 324, 34 and 120-B of the IPC & 27 of Arms Act in which the investigation was 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 conducted by the police and charge-sheet submitted as against the appellants and other accused persons on 18.06.2002 for the offence under Sections 447, 307, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act, on the basis of which cognizance was taken. Further, after the submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed on 04.01.2005 by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.6 u/s 447, 307/34, 120-B of IPC against 7 accused persons. Later on, informant filed a petition u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. making a prayer to implicate the appellants Binod Kumar Rajak & Santosh Rajak and subsequently appellants were made accused and the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI Jamshedpur on 25.08.2005 had framed charge under Sections 447, 307/34 120-B of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act which was explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The learned trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and convicted both the appellants along with co-accused since (deceased)- Rajesh Rajak for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 120B of the IPC and order of sentence was passed under which both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon both the appellants and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further both the appellants were also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 120-B of the IPC.
7. Heard the learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
8. It is submitted on behalf of both the appellants that these appellants namely, Vinod Kumar Rajak and Santosh Kumar Rajak have been made accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. because the charge-sheet was not submitted against these two appellants and during the course of the trial on the basis of the evidence they have been made accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, on 25.08.2005 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 the charge was framed against these two appellants for the offence punishable under Section 447, 307/34 and 120B of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and on earlier occasion charge was framed against only 7 accused persons on 04.01.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 307/34 & 120-B of the IPC and as such nine persons were put on trial by the learned trial Court but during the course of trial one of the accused, namely Laltu Pal became absconder and therefore his trial was split and altogether 8 persons faced the trial out of whom 5 were acquitted and three persons namely, Rajesh Kumar Rajak since (deceased) Santosh Kumar Rajak, appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.95 of 2007 and Vinod Kumar Rajak appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1623 of 2006 were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 120B of the IPC and accordingly they were convicted therein and in this view of matter, it is submitted that the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts in the appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and without any cogent evidence passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against these two appellants.
9. Further it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including the two injured eye-witnesses PW-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and PW-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal did not disclose the name of the culprit who had fired upon them by which they were said to have sustained injuries, even the injured PW-3, Amit Kumar Mandal did not name even these two appellants as to whether they were present at the place of occurrence or not and he has not taken the name of anyone of the culprits but the learned trial Court has ignored all these facts.
10. Further it has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that the other witnesses who are said to be the family members and present at the time of occurrence in the house including PW-1 Mahadeo Mahato, PW-2 Sabita Rani Mandal, PW- 4 Khagendra Nath Mandal did not utter a single word about these two appellants who had fired upon the injured PW-3 and PW-5 and there had been omnibus allegations that these appellants were also present at the time of occurrence along 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 with other culprits and therefore, the charges levelled against the accused-appellants have not been substantiated.
11. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that enmity is admitted fact between both the parties and in absence of any specific charge for firing upon the injured persons against anyone of these two appellants, the benefit of doubt goes to the appellants and further it has also been pointed out that as per the injury report and the examinations of the doctors as PW-9 Om Prakash Gupta, PW-10 Ashok Chattoraj and PW-11 Hari Pandey who medically examined the PW-3 and PW-5 and they found only one injury inflicted upon each of them and injuries found on each of them are simple in nature and therefore the inference for committing the offence of attempt to murder is also not substantiated although the learned trial Court without applying the judicial mind even on the nature, mode and manner of the injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured persons convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/120-B of the IPC which is not substantiated at all and utmost it is an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
12. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that PW-1 is also said to be an eye witness who was the family member of the informant and he was present in the house at the time of the incident but in his earlier statement before the I.O. he did not disclose the name of these two appellants and he had also stated before the I.O that some unknown had fired upon the informant because it was dark and hence the informant could not identify and similarly the PW-2 Sabita Rani Mandal who is also said to be an eye witness of the occurrence had never disclosed before the I.O that she had seen the occurrence nor she had claimed as to who had fired upon the injured persons, PW-3 and PW-5.
13. Further, it has also been pointed out on behalf of the learned defence counsel that the conviction with the aid of Section 120-B i.e. criminal conspiracy has also not been proved by the prosecution and the learned trial Court without coming to the conclusion with respect to the charge of conspiracy convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC which is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007
14. It has also been pointed out that the another eye-witness who is PW-4 Khagendra Nath Mandal also had not disclosed before the I.O. about the name of the persons who had fired upon the injured persons nor he had claimed to identify the culprit and as such all these witnesses Mahadev Mandal PW-1, Sabita Rani Mandal PW-2 and Khagendra Nath Mandal PW-4 have never stated before I.O. that they identified these two appellants or they were present at the time of occurrence before the I.O. during the course of the investigation. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State assisted by Informant.
15. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the versions of the injured eye-witnesses namely PW-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and PW-5 Kishor Kumar Mandal (informant) who had sustained the injuries and further it has also been argued on behalf of the prosecution that PW-1 Mahadeo Mahto, PW-2 Sabita Rani Mandal, PW-4 Khagendra Nath Mandal who are family members have taken specifically and categorically the name of these two appellants that they were present at the place of occurrence although they have not specifically and pointedly stated about the fact as to who had fired upon the injured persons because these two appellants were said to be present at the time of occurrence along with other offenders also.
16. Further, it has also been pointed out that the informant Kishor Kumar Mandal (P.W.5) had categorically stated in his Fardbayan about the presence of these two appellants namely Santosh Kumar Rajak and Vinod Kumar Rajak and he had been very consistent in his deposition during the course of the trial and also about the presence of Vinod Kumar Rajak and Santosh Kumar Rajak although he did not disclose as to who had fired upon the injured persons PW-3 and PW-5 and thus it has been submitted that these two appellants have been very consistent and honest in their versions without making any improvement in their statements.
17. Further it has also been pointed out on behalf of the prosecution that vide paragraph 8 it appears that PW-1 had made an application 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 before the Court that the I.O. has recorded his statement wrongly and therefore the version that he had not disclosed the name of these two appellants amongst the culprits who had committed the incident is wrong which is evident from the fact that even the charge-sheet was not submitted against these two appellants and these two appellants have been arrayed as accused during the course trial under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. when the evidences have come against them and thereafter, the charge was framed and they faced trial and thereafter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed against these two appellants.
18. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the depositions of PW-1 Mahadev Mahato, PW-2 Sabita Rani Mandal, PW-4, Khagendra Nath Mandal and in the light of the testimonies of injured PW-3 and PW-5 and after appreciating the injuries inflicted upon the injured persons as evident from the depositions of the doctors who had medically examined the injured persons PW-3 and PW-5 and the doctors have been examined as PW-9 OM Prakash Gupta, PW-10 Ashok Chattoraj and PW-11 Hari Pandey, convicted these two appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 120-B of the IPC and there is no iota of evidence deposed or to create any doubt about the depositions of these witnesses and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
19. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment, the depositions and the other materials available on Trial Court Record.
20. In order to substantiate the offences, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether 11 witnesses which are as under:
1. P.W.1- Mahadev Mahato
2. P.W.2-Sabita Rani Mandal (sister of the informant)
3. P.W.3-Amit Kumar Mandal (Bhagina of the informant and injured)) 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007
4. P.W.4-Khagendra Nath Mandal (father of the informant)
5. P.W.5-Kishore Kumar Mandal (informant)
6. P.W.6-Ram Chandra Rajak (I.O.)
7. P.W.7- Gopal Prasad Jaiswal (independent witness)
8. P.W.8- Bijoy Rajak (Independent witness)
9. P.W.9- Dr. Om Prakash Gupta
10.P.W.10-Dr. Ashok Chattoraj
11.P.W. -11 Dr. Hari Pandey Prosecution has also adduced some documentary evidence which are as under-
I. Ext.-1 Signature of Kishore Kumar Mandal on fardbeyan;
II. Ext.-2 signature of officer-in-charge D.K. Srivastav on FIR;
III. Ext.-2/1 signature of officer-in-charge D.K. Srivastav on FIR;
IV. Ext.-3 Endorsement on fardbeyan;
V. Ext.-4 Seizure list;
VI. Ext.-5 charge sheet;
VII. Ext.P-6 injury report of injured Amit Kumar Mandal;
VIII. Ext.P-7 injury report of injured Kishore Kumar Mandal;
One bullet has also been exhibited as material exhibit as Ext. D-1
21. Out of 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, no concrete evidence has been adduced on behalf of two injured eye witnesses namely, PW-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and PW-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal as to who had caused injuries upon them out of six culprits. From the testimonies of PW-3, it is found that he did not take the name of these two appellants but he clearly stated that miscreants came to the house and fired upon his maternal uncle (P.W.-5) and there upon when he also come out from the house, he also sustained fire arm injury on his back.
22. This witness PW-3 Amit Kumar Mandal categorically stated that he did not see as to who had fired upon them (as he has stated in his depositions that कौन गोऱी चऱाया यह मैंने नहीीं दे खा था क्योंकक मैं पऩछे 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 था) and who had come committed the offence. P.W-3 has not taken name of any accused persons nor he took the name of these two appellants as evident from his testimonies before the Court.
23. Another injured witness is PW-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal who supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that six miscreants came to his house including these two appellants and fired upon them by which PW-3 and PW-5 sustained injuries but he did not depose that who had fired upon them but the presence of these two appellants have been supported by this witness who is the informant and he had disclosed the name of these appellants in the FIR also amongst six accused persons.
24. From the version of these two injured witnesses, it is inferred that six miscreants had come in which these two appellants were also present.
25. Further, it is found that the occurrence took place when the miscreants had knocked the door at about 10:00 pm at night on the date of occurrence and they were six in number as evident from the F.I.R itself also from the version of PW-5 in his deposition and these versions have been fully supported by the other witnesses also who were present when culprits after knocking the door committed the occurrence as the other family members were also present in the house namely PW-1 Mahadeo Mahto, PW-2 Sabita Rani Mandal (sister of the informant) and P.W.-4 Khagendra Nath Mandal (Father of the informant) and from their depositions, it is categorically found that on the date of occurrence, six miscreants had come to the house of the informant P.W.-5 and these two appellants were amongst them but none of the witnesses had stated as to who had fired from the gun by which the injured persons namely P.W.3 Amit Kumar Mandal and P.W.5 Kishore Kumar Mandal had sustained injuries.
26. Further it has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel about the depositions of PW-6 i.e. I.O. in this case that so called other eye witnesses namely P.W.-1 Mahadeo Mahto, P.W.-2 Sabita Rani Mandal and P.W.-4 Khagendra Nath Mandal had never disclosed the name of anyone of the miscreants nor disclosed the name of the persons who had fired upon the injured persons and thus the versions 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 of these witnesses namely, P.W.-1, P.W.2 and P.W.-4 before the Court that six miscreants had come and these two appellants were amongst them is not improvement from their earlier versions which were recorded by the police during the course of the investigation.
27. PW-6 Ramchandra Rajak is the I.O. and his relevant statement in his cross examination is reproduced as under-
यह बात सही है कक गवाह महादे व महतो ने मुझे ऐसा बयान ददया था कक सच ू क ने उन्हें बताया कक अज्ञात व्यक्क्तयों ने गोऱी चऱाया था l क्योंकक अींधेरा था इसलऱए ऩदहचाना नहीीं l यह बात सही है कक मझ ु े अनुसींधान के दौरान सपवता रानी मींडऱ गवाह ने घटना दे खने की बात नहीीं बतायी थी l और गोऱी चऱाने वाऱे का नाम बताया था और नाही उन्हें ऩदहचानने का दावा ककया था l यह बात सही है कक मझ ु े गवाह महादे व महतो ने भी गोऱी चऱाने वाऱों का नाम नहीीं बताया था केवऱ सींभावना व्यक्त की थी l तथा अींधेरा होने के कारण नहीीं ऩदहचानने की बात बतायी थी I यह बात सही है कक मुझे गवाह खगें द्र नाथ मींडऱ ने भी गोऱी चऱाने वाऱों का नाम नहीीं बताया था l और नाही ऩदहचानने का दावा ककया है l Thus, from the dispositions of P.W.-6 in the cross-examination, it is found true that they have not disclosed the name of these two appellants in their earlier statement before the police but all of them have consistently supported that these two appellants were among those miscreants who had come to the place of occurrence who committed the offence as disclosed in the FIR itself. Further it has also come into evidence of PW-1 (vide para 8) that their versions were wrongly recorded by the police and therefore their earlier statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. creates a doubt about the veracity of their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Further, in the earlier statement recorded by the police (I.O.) of these witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 also becomes doubtful that they have not taken the name of these two appellants in view of the fact that these two appellants have been made accused during the course of the trial when the learned Trial Court has found evidence against them under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. when all the witnesses including P.W.-1, P.W.2 , P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have consistently deposed about the presence of these two appellants at the time of the commission of the occurrence along with 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 the other miscreants although it is not clear cut evidence as to who had fired upon the injured persons but it is well founded that these two appellants were present amongst the miscreants who had fired upon the injured persons who sustained injuries.
28. Further it is found from the injury reports i.e. Ext. P-6 and Ext. P-7, which has been proved by the Doctors P.W.-9, Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, P.W.10-Dr. Ashok Chattoraj, P.W. -11 Dr. Hari Pandey that only one injury upon each of the injured persons and nature of injury was simple in nature and it was not sufficient to cause death also and therefore the intention to commit murder of the injured persons are not substantiated as inferred from the nature and mode of injuries as evident from the injury report of both the injured persons vide exhibit Ext. P-6 and Ext. P-7.
29. Recapitulating the depositions as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that these two appellants were present along with the other miscreants at the time of occurrence when the two injured persons namely P.W.-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and P.W.5 Kishore Kumar Mandal sustained injuries and therefore their involvement in the commission of the offence is proved.
30. So far as the offence under Section 307 is concerned, it is manifest from the injuries report that both the injuries were simple in nature and therefore I find force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that utmost it is a case under Section 324 of the IPC because although lethal weapon has been used but there was no intention or knowledge to commit the murder of the injured persons and thus this Court finds that learned trial court has committed gross error in fastening the guilt of the appellants for the offence under Section 307/120B of the IPC rather it is case for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC only.
31. In result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur against these two appellants are set aside and it is modified and altered to the extent that offence is punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC and thus both the appellants are found 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and accordingly both the appellants are convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC.
32. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is stated by the learned defence counsel that occurrence is of the year 2002 i.e. 22.04.2002 and as such more than 22 years have gone under which these appellants have been suffering from the trauma and misery of the criminal prosecution. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants are the men of criminal history. The appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1623 of 2006 i.e. Vinod Kumar Rajak has remained in jail for about 06 Months 08 days and Appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.95 of 2007 i.e. Santosh Kumar Razak has remained in jail for about 07 Months 03 days and both the appellants have crossed their middle age and therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellant that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence.
33. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, it is found that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again to the jail and purpose of justice would be meted out if the order of sentence dated 24.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur is set aside and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the term of a period already undergone by them and a suitable amount of fine is imposed by way of compensation in order to give to the victims/injured persons namely P.W.-3 and P.W.-5.
34. In this view of the matter, the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur is set aside and it is modified and altered to the extent that both the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with section 34 of the IPC and further both of them is awarded the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and a composite sentence of fine is imposed upon the appellants to a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) in order to give it to the 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 victims/injured persons i.e. P.W.-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and P.W.-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to each of the injured person.
35. Since, the appellants are on bail therefore they are given six months‟ time to deposit the said fine amount and in case of default of payment of fine, they will undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the victim/injured PW- 3 Amit Kumar Mandal and P.W.-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal by way of compensation.
36. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law.
37. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released and/ or discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.
38. The learned trial court is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the victims/injured persons P.W.-3 Amit Kumar Mandal and P.W.-5 Kishore Kumar Mandal and on their appearance the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to them. In case, the said victims are not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not appear before the learned trial Court, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victims/injured persons or else, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is directed to co-operate in this regard.
39. In result, both the Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007 modification in the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence as above.
40. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Basant /S.Das 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 & 95 of 2007