Hari Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 11.06.2012 in Sessions Trial Case No. 59 of 2012 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 323 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for four years with fine of 1,000/- for the offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant is the sole accused. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant confines his prayer and challenge only the quantum of sentence. He is not challenging the judgment of conviction. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel submits that the appellant is none but the son of the informant. He is aged about 32 years on the date of judgment and now he would be of 44 years. He submitted that he is a married person having children and he has already remained in custody for a period of 11 months. As per him the occurrence had taken place on 16.01.2012 and for 12 years he has been facing the rigors of this criminal case, thus the sentence should be reduced.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and as he has confined his appeal only to the quantum of sentence, I am of the opinion that since the appellant has undergone the rigors of this criminal case for last 12 years, the sentence for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for which maximum punishment is one year, be reduced to the period he has already remained in custody i.e. for 11 months.

So far as section 435 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, I find that he is none but the son of the informant. He had burnt some blankets, curtains and bed sheets of his house as there was some altercation with the informant i.e. father of this appellant and this appellant. The genesis of the occurrence is that he had demanded some cash from his father, which was refused. The fact is that he has burnt some blankets, curtains and bed sheets but admittedly he has not assaulted his father or mother.

Considering the fact that he has remained in custody for 11 months and he is now aged about 44 years having his family, it would not be proper to send the appellant in jail. Thus, I reduce the sentence of this appellant to the period which he has already undergone.

Since he is on bail, he is discharged of the liabilities of the bail bonds so are the bailors.

This appeal stands partly allowed only with the modification of the sentence.