Raj Kumar Dom vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

By Court:- Heard Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2015 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 651 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 377 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence, with default stipulation.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 08.05.2009, at about 04:15 P.M., the minor victim, aged about 8 years, son of the informant, went out to play. After sometime, he returned in a weeping condition and informed his father, namely Ram Swaroop Ram (the informant) that the accused, Raj Kumar Dom had taken him to the house of Yogendra Dom situated near the Railway Crossing, Jailhata, Daltonganj, where he committed unnatural sexual intercourse with him after pressing his mouth. The informant also saw injury on the victim’s anal region. The occurrence committed at about 04:00 P.M. The informant, namely Ram Swaroop Ram reached at police station Town P.S. Daltongaj on the same day at 06:45 P.M. and submitted his fardbeyan before the police.

On the basis of said fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was registered against the sole accused, namely Raj Kumar Dom for the offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. being Town P.S. Case No.153 of 2009, dated 08.05.2009.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence and accordingly, cognizance was taken for the same offence. Charges were framed against the accused which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

On the other hand, the defence has also examined two witnesses, namely D.W.-1, Yogendra Ram and D.W.-2, Anita Devi, but no documentary evidence has been adduced.

After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above, which was upheld by learned Appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been assailed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that although, no concrete evidence has been adduced by the prosecution against the petitioner, but he has been convicted for the offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner has undergone into custody for 3 years and 2 months in connection with the present case during the trial and post conviction. Therefore, he has been punished sufficiently for his guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of custody already undergone.

On the other hand learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that this case is stale one, of the year 2009 and the petitioner has remained in custody for about 3 years and 2 months, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 377 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by learned Appellate Court is affirmed. But so far as sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 2009 and more than one and half decades have been elapsed and out of 7 years' imprisonment, he has already undergone about 3 years and 2 months in custody, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, sentence is reduced from 7 years of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above.

The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A.s, if any stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.