Ishwar Ram vs State Of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above named appellants for setting aside their conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-I) Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1991 dated 18th June 2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Factual Matrix

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.10.1990 at about 08:00 PM, while informant was returning to his home from the market and as he reached near the house of one Chand Ram, suddenly he was surrounded by the accused persons and assaulted by them with lathi which caused multiple injuries to him. It is alleged that due to non-availability of transportation facility in night, he was unable to go to police station. On 15.10.1990 when informant along with his friend namely Balram Ram was proceeding towards the police station to complain about the occurrence of last night, they were again intercepted by the accused persons namely Ishwar Ram and Tileshwar Ram near the house of the Lakhan Ram and they caught hold of Balram Ram and assaulted him by lathi due to which he sustained severe injuries on his head and informant was also assaulted and sustained injuries.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Sadar P.S. Case No. 140/90 dated 15.10.1990 was registered. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 12.04.1991.

The appellants have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment was passed.

Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards quantum of sentence stating inter alia that in the course of trial and post-conviction, the appellants have remained in total custody for about five years. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the occurrence of this case alleged to have been happened on two days i.e. on 14/15.10.1990 and a common F.I.R. was lodged. Initially, the F.I.R. was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C., later on Section 302 was added due to death of Balram Ram. The learned trial court has categorically arrived at definite conclusion that the said murder was not intentional and the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was culminated into conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the appellant no.2 (Tejeshwar Ram) was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.10.1990 and appellant no.1 (Ishwar Ram) surrendered before the court concerned on 05.11.1990. Both the appellants were remained all along in custody and ultimately were released on bail vide order dated 09.01.1995 passed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, both the appellants were taken into custody on 18.01.2003 at the time of passing of impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the learned trial court. The appellants have been granted bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 27.02.2003. It is further submitted that the appellants themselves were victimized by the informant party by leveling imputations of bad character against the wife of appellant no.1 and in a sudden manner the occurrence took place resulting in death of one Balram Ram. The appellants have been sufficiently punished for their guilt through their long incarceration during trial. Now more than three decades have been passed from the date of the alleged occurrence and no criminal activities has been imputed against the appellants rather they have maintained the normal stream of life. Therefore, the sentence passed against the appellants requires to be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone and this appeal may be disposed of accordingly.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions regarding reduction of sentence of appellants, but no aggravating circumstances has been brought on record to justify the objection raised by him. It is simply stated that the appellants have caused death of the deceased hence, sentence imposed upon them is adequate and proportionate which requires no interference.

We have considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties along with impugned judgment as well as record of the learned trial court. It appears that at the time of conviction of the appellants, there was no previous conviction for any offence against them and it was their first offence. The genesis of occurrence is also based on imputation of bad character against the wife of the appellant no. 1 (Ishwar Ram) which enraged him and the occurrence took place. There was no premeditation for commission of murder of the deceased. In the factual background of the case accompanied with the age, character and antecedent of the appellants, we are of the firm opinion that the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants during trial of the case is sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice in this case. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part-I is upheld. So far sentence is concerned, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellants instead of R.I. of 10 years to the extent of imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.