Ramu Tudu vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

By Court:-

Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P.

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.07.2005 passed by the learned 4^th Addl. District Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2003 / 89 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 493 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant had gone to see Sukhjora Mela in the month of Asad, 2000 and she met with accused Ram Tudu. It is alleged that accused talked with her sweet words and allured her to go with him at his home and he would marry her and keep her as his wife. The informant agreed with him and came to his house at village Nayamara, P.S. Taljhari, Dist.- Dumka. On the next day, parents of the informant came at his house in order to search her, where a panchayat was held in presence of village pradhan and the accused assured them that he would marry with the informant and the informant started living with the accused. It is further alleged that the accused established sexual intercourse many times on the promise that he would marry her. In the month of Falgun, the accused drove her out from his house and solemnized marriage with another girl.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant an F.I.R. being Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Sections 376 & 493 of the I.P.C against the above named accused.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the above named accused and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 87 of 2003 / 89 of 2004 was registered.

The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

It appears that altogether seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence: -

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence.

The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Section 493 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant, without touching the merits of the impugned judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 493 I.P.C., out of which the petitioner has remained in custody for about one year and ten months. It is further submitted that it is a case of year 2002 as per F.I.R. lodged on 22.06.2002 but the occurrence is alleged to be happened from year 2000. More than two decades, i.e., 26 years have been elapsed. The victim has also solemnized marriage and living in a peaceful manner. The occurrence happened due to custom prevailing in Santhal community and the appellant has been sufficiently sentenced for his misdeed. Therefore, sentence passed against the appellant may be reduced to the extent of the imprisonment already undergone by him, instead of the sentence of three years awarded by the learned Trial Court.

On the other hand learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that there are concrete finding of the learned Trial Court. The appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial court. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.

From perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and considering the factual aspect of the case, it appears that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C., as the evidence on record shows that the accused allured the victim to come at his home and in a panchayat, he agreed to keep her as his wife and after this, the victim began to live with him. There is evidence that the accused kept the victim with him deceitfully and established physical relationship with her. After keeping for some time, she was driven out. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not objected the merits of the judgment of conviction of the appellant, rather confined himself only on the point of sentence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C. is upheld.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it appears on consideration of the overall background of the case and present scenario that appellant has remained in custody for almost one year and ten months and more than two decades have been elapsed, I am of the view that the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, the sentence of the appellant is altered / modified and he is awarded the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him as against the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as mentioned above.

The appellant 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, is also disposed of accordingly.

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