Bernard Ekka vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2016 / 20.02.2017 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has upheld the conviction of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, which has been awarded by the learned trial court, for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C., but has modified the sentence of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, which has been awarded by the learned trial court to the extent that instead of undergoing simple imprisonment of one year and six months, opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, total Rs. 10,000/-under Section 324 of I.P.C., out of which half of the amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim and complainant under the provisions of Section 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. with default stipulation.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Branad Ekka filed a complaint case under Section 148, 148, 447, 109, 427, 307, 324/34 of I.P.C. on 24.05.2007. The learned C.J.M., Gumla, after registering Complaint Case No. C-125/07, transferred the case to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Gumla for enquiry and trial. After enquiry, learned S.D.J.M., Gumla found a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 324 and 427 of I.P.C. on 23.04.2008 against all the seven accused persons.

In the complaint case, the complainant has alleged that accused no. 1 Claimant Minz is a missionary Father, who used to misguide villagers to grab the land of the complainant pertaining to Khata No. 50, Plot No. 66, 67 and 68 by force and dispossessed him. In the year 1989, accused no. 1 got murdered Tarcius Ekka, father of complainant Barnad Ekka with the help of his brother Benjamin Minz and other criminal. On 09.05.2007, accused no. 1 along with accused nos. 2 to 7 forming unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapon abused complainant and threatened to kill him. On 20.05.2007, accused nos. 2 to 7 called a meeting at Village – Kanchora P.S. Raidih, District – Gumla and forced the complainant and his brother to sign upon a plain paper. On their refusal to do so they beat Victim (witness no. 4) who was saved by witness no. 1 and 2. When the victim (witness no. 4) went to Raidih P.S. to lodge a complaint, no action was taken by the police. On 21.05.2007, the complainant brought witness no. 4 to Sadar Hospital Gumla where he was treated as outdoor patient as the police not forwarded him. The doctor examining him found multiple injuries on his person and x-ray of chest was also done. On 22.05.2007 itself the complainant made a written complaint to S.P., Gumla against accused no. 2, 6 and 7. On the same day Officer-in-Charge of Raidih Police Station visited the Village – Kanchor and in his very presence accused no. 2 to 7 destroyed the paddy crop of the complainant worth Rs. 5,000/- without having any concern with lands of complainant. Under influence of accused no. 1, they were also adamant to drag out the complainant from the village. Accused are criminals by nature and out of fear, villagers do not raise any voice against them.

On the basis of materials available on record, on 10.12.2012, charges were framed under Sections 324, 427 of I.P.C. against seven accused persons (except accused no. 1), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The case of accused no. 1 Claimant Minz was separated vide order dated 04.11.2009 whereas on 15.06.2013, statement of six accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., to which they pleaded innocence and false implication and stated to give evidence in their defence.

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether six witnesses and also adduced several documentary evidences.

On the other hand, the defence has also examined two witnesses and also adduced documentary evidences.

After conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as stated above.

The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court was challenged by the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 along with one Tyofill Lakra (since deceased) in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2014 before the learned Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has upheld the conviction of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, but has modified the order of sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing simple imprisonment of one year and six months, opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, total Rs. 10,000/- under Section 324 of I.P.C., out of which half of the amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim complainant under the provisions of Section 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court without recording any valid reasons for differing from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court acted in illegal and perverse manner. It is further submitted that there are sufficient materials on record to justify the conviction and sentence, but the Appellate Court has wrongly modified the judgment of the trial court passed in Complaint Case No. 125/2007. The learned Appellate Court has acted beyond the evidence on record. Therefore, impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is fit to be restored and maintained.

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have submitted that the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, but considering no criminal antecedent of opposite party nos. 2 to 6, their age and also considering civil litigation pending in respect of impugned land has rightly modified the sentence of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for fine only, therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court.

The Revisional Court has a limited power to exercise in order to check the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment / order and no such glaring irregularity or error of law in the judgment of learned Appellate Court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, calling for any interference in this revision. Therefore, this revision has got no merits and is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.

It appears that the learned Trial Court has convicted the opposite party nos. 2 & 6 for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and six months and the appellate court has also upheld the conviction but has modified the order of sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing simple imprisonment of one year and six months, opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, total Rs. 10,000/- under Section 324 of I.P.C., out of which half of the amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim complainant under the provisions of Section 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. with default stipulation.

The sole point of law for consideration in this revision is that “as to whether the appellate court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment”.

For better appreciation of the case, the relevant provision of Section 324 of I.P.C., under which the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were convicted, appears to be extracted hereunder:-

From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is true that for the offences under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, the Court may impose sentence or fine or both. Thus, the learned trial court / appellate court has discretion to impose either sentence or fine or both. But such a discretion has to be exercised by the Court judiciously. The broad object to punish an accused found guilty is to impress on the guilty party that commission of crime does not pay and that it is both against his individual interest and also against the larger interest of the society to which he belongs. The learned trial court / appellate court is also required to see that the sentence to be appropriate and the sentence should neither be too harsh nor too lenient. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the accused persons have committed offence Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and caused injuries to the complainant, it appears that the learned appellate has exercised the discretion judiciously while passing order of punishment and imposing fine only and in not imposing any substantive sentence.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this Revision, calling for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 2014.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.