AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shree Chandrashekhar, J
Mr. Raj Vardhan, the learned Amicus and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned APP have prepared a chart on conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner on various counts, in tabular form.
Taken on record.
The petitioner along with seven persons were made accused in Sadar PS Case No. 161 of 2010 which was registered on 10th October 2010 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 386, 504, 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). In course of the investigation, Dilip Bhuian and Srawan Dangi were found juvenile and, accordingly, the records of the case qua them were split up. A charge-sheet was filed against Sunil Pawsan, Dilip Bhuian, Santosh Dangi, Srawan Dangi and Chintu Paswan under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 386, 504, 506 and 342 IPC while the investigation against Santu Yadav, Mahendra Dangi and Pintu Paswan was kept pending.
Sunil Paswan, Santosh Dangi and Chintu Paswan faced the trial in G.R Case No.862 of 2010 for committing the aforesaid offences on an allegation that in the night of 9th October 2010, at about 11:30 PM, the accused broke open doors of the house of Kamakhya Narayan Singh, demanded Rs.42,000/- in extortion, threatened to kill him and set his house on fire if he failed to pay extortion money and assaulted him with butt of the gun and took away Rs.12000/- kept in the southern room of his house. Sunil Paswan and Dilip Bhuian were apprehended by the villagers who had assembled on hearing hullah and were handed over to police which arrived at the place of occurrence on information by the villagers.
In G.R Case No.862 of 2010, Sunil Paswan, Santosh Dangi and Chintu Paswan have been convicted under sections 147, 148, 452, 386, 504, 506/149 IPC – they were acquitted of the charge under section 342 IPC. They preferred Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2012 which has been dismissed with modification in the order of sentence dated 4th December 2012 passed in G.R Case No.862 of 2010.
The conviction of the petitioner and sentence awarded to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in G.R Case No.862 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2012 are reproduced below in tabular form (prepared by the learned counsels appearing for the parties):
FIR Registered u/s (IPC)
Punishment prescribed in IPC and other deails in CrPC (as per 2009 Ed. Bare Act)
Chargesheet filed u/s
Cognizance taken u/s
Convicted u/s by the trial Court
Sentence awarded by the trial Court
Sentence (after appeal)
Remark
147
May extend to 2 years &/or Fine. Cognizaable Bailable Any Magistrate Non-compoundable
147
147
Yes
RI 1 year
RI 1 year
Sentence Not changed
148
May extend to 3 years &/or Fine. Cognizaable Bailable Magistrate 1st Class Non-compoundable
148
148
Yes
RI 1½ years
RI 1 year
Sentence reduced by ½ year
149
Same as for the offence
149
149
Yes
452
May extend to 7 years + Fine. Cognizaable Non-Bailable Any Magistrate Non-compoundable
452
452
Yes
RI 4 year + Fine Rs.5000/-
RI 2 year + Fine Rs.1000/
Sentence Reduced by half
386
May extend to 10 years + Fine. Cognizaable Non-Bailable Magistrate 1st Class Non-compoundable
386
376
Yes
RI 7 years + Fine Rs.10,000
RI 3½ years + Fine Rs.4000/-
Sentence Reduced by half
504
May extend to 2 year &/or Fine. Non-cognizaable Bailable Any Magistrate Compoundable [320(1) CrPC]
504
504
RI 1 year
RI 1 year
Not changed
506
May extend to 2 year &/or Fine. (may extend to 7 years &/or Fine – for threat of death/grievous hurt) Non-cognizaable Bailable Any Magistrate Compoundable [320(1) CrPC]
506
506
Yes
RI 1½ years
RI 1 year
Sentence Reduced by ½ year
342
1 year &/or Fine Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate Compoundable [320(1) CrPC]
342
Not convicted
Not convicted
Not convicted
Not convicted
Run concurrently
The only point urged by Mr. Raj Vardhan, the learned Amicus is that the sessions Court committed serious error in law in confining Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2012 on the point of sentence.
Mr. Raj Vardhan, the learned Amicus has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph no.7 of the judgment in the aforesaid criminal appeal, which is reproduced hereinafter below :
“7. During argument learned counsel for the appellants filed applications mentioning therein that he wants to argue the appeals only in respect to quantum of sentence and not on merit related to Judgment of conviction. Therefore, it is apparent that the appellants are admitting the legality and genuinity of the judgment of conviction and they have not controverted or challenged it.”
In “Jeetu @ Jitendera & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh” (2013) 11 SCC 489, in a similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“23. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that when a convicted person prefers an appeal, he has the legitimate expectation to be dealt with by the Courts in accordance with law. That apart, he has intrinsic faith in the criminal justice dispensation system and it is the sacred duty of the adjudicatory system to remain alive to the said faith. He has embedded trust in his counsel that he shall put forth his case to the best of his ability assailing the conviction and to do full justice to the case. That apart, a counsel is expected to assist the Courts in reaching a correct conclusion. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the appeal on merits and not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. We are compelled to note here that we have come across many cases where the High Courts, after recording the non-challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly state that the same being impermissible in law should not be taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the established principles of law.”
Having regard to the judgment in “Jeetu @ Jitendera”, the judgment dated 5th September 2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2012 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court concerned for a decision on merits of the case.
Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2012 shall be restored to its original file.
The Court concerned shall issue notice to the petitioner for his appearance. However, if he fails to appear on the date fixed the bail granted to him vide order dated 4th August 2015 by this Court shall be cancelled. This direction is being issued in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala” (2005) 13 SCC 283.
Criminal Revision No.466 of 2015 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus and the learned APP who meticulously prepared the short synopsis, list of dates and tabular charts on conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Let the lower Court records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through “Fax”.