Shatrughan Kumar Shatru vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2009, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2004, whereby and whereunder two co-accused were acquitted while the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 353 & 332 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.02.2002, the informant, Smt. Archana Mehta, the then Block Development Officer, was performing her official duties in her office, approximately 100 persons, led by the accused, Shatrughan Kumar Shatru, entered her office. Shatrughan Kumar Shatru asked the informant about the status of his demand letter. The informant informed him that the said demand letter had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, as it contained allegations against her. Thereupon, Shatrughan Kumar Shatru, claiming to be the District President of the BSP, allegedly told the informant that she was arguing with him and was not acting according to their directions and threatened to finish the matter that very day. When the informant refused to be treated rudely or abused, the accused allegedly scattered the records lying on the table. When she objected to such conduct, Shatrughan Kumar Shatru allegedly used objectionable and abusive language against her, including derogatory words. Thereafter, with the intention of pulling the informant from her chair, the accused allegedly caught hold of and choked her, causing her to feel suffocated. On hearing the commotion, the informant’s colleagues and other office staff arrived and rescued her. The accused thereafter allegedly left the office while threatening that they would get her removed from her job. While leaving, the accused also allegedly took away certain official records, stating that the records were incorrect.

On the basis of above information, Patan P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 332, 333, 307, 452 & 477 of the I.P.C.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 353, 354, 342, 307, 452 & 427 of the I.P.C. and after taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2004 was registered. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication.

After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 353 & 332 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has submitted that the appellant has held guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 353 & 332 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. It is also submitted that the appellant has been granted provisional bail by the learned Trial Court which was confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2009. It was first offence of the appellant and he has never been convicted for any other offence. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. The occurrence took place in the year 2002 and even after conviction, the appellant has maintained peace and good conduct and has been living a normal life. The prosecution has not been able to brought on record any criminal history or previous conviction of the appellant. Hence, the appellant may be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of directing for substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but so far as the plea for extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, no serious objection has been raised.

I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record.

It appears that plea of first offence and no other previous conviction has been taken by appellant at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence, but has been rejected by learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons. It is also a fact that the appellant has never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident is of the year 2002 and more than two decades have been elapsed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and have never been involved in any other criminal activities.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, for which the appellant appears to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by learned Trial Court, the appellant is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond.

The appellant shall enter his appearance before the Probation Officer, Palamau, once in a month within first week of the month till one year.

In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellant to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.

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

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