Lalmuni Oraon vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. Chaubey and Mr. Hadish Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2005 passed by Shri Krishna Murari Gupta, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. Case No.454 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years each for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.

Nagar Utari P.S. Case No.98 of 1999 (G.R. No.694 of 1999) has been registered on 01.11.1999 on the fardbeyan of the informant-cum-injured (P.W.5-Yugeshwar Oraon). As per the FIR, the allegation has been made against the appellant that the appellant along with co-accused had assaulted the informant namely Yugeshwar Oraon and Bigu Oraon (P.W.-1) with sharp cutting weapons and this had resulted in grievous injury.

On completion of investigation, the police has charge-sheeted the appellant along with other co-accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and charge had been framed against the present appellant under Sections 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the prosecution story, seven witnesses have been examined. P.W.1-Bigu Oraon is one of the injured person. P.W.2-Bishambar Oraon, P.W.3-Rameshwar Oraon and P.W.4-Satendra Oraon are the villagers and had come at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. P.W.5-Yugeshwar Oraon is the informant-cum-injured witness. P.W.6-Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh has proved the injury of the injured persons. The I.O. has not been examined in this case.

At the very outset counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is confining this appeal only to the sentencing part and praying for benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that by the impugned judgment altogether five persons have been convicted in which four persons have been given benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. while the present appellant had been denied only on the ground that the grievous injury has been caused by him. It has further been submitted that at the time of judgment the age of the appellant had been recorded as 62 years but actually he was about 70-75 years old, as it has been noted in the order of sentence itself. Now after the lapse of 15 years the appellant is more than 80 years.

The report has been called for and in the present case an affidavit has been filed and it has been informed by the Officer-in-Charge, Nagar Utari Police Station that the appellant is not in a position to walk and now he is giving his services to a private Dharamshala and for this he is getting Rs.500/- as wage. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody from 01.11.1999 to 09.10.2001 during trial and after conviction he has remained in custody from 04.12.2005 to 26.06.2007 and as such he has remained in custody for about 42 months. Since the conviction of the appellant is not under challenge and as such there is no requirement to scrutinize the evidence. The incident is of the year 1999. The trial had been concluded in the year 2005 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer.

Considering the period of litigation and the period of custody of the appellant, the order of sentence is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone.

With above modification present appeal stands disposed of.