Sakti Pado Das Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella Kharswan in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 321 of 1999 (T.R No. 139 of 2008), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and has been sentenced for a period of 2 years R.I, has been sustained.

The prosecution case in short is that on 18.07.1999, the injured Abiram Mahato came to police station and submitted a written report stating therein that on 18.07.1999 at about 6:00 a.m. when he was working on his field he saw his co-villager accused Sakati Pado has left his buffalo to grase his paddy crop. When the informant went to him to say then accused gave him a 'danda' blow over his left hand. Due to said assault, he sustained injury.

After investigation, I.O. submitted the charge-sheet under Section 323/325 IPC and cognizance was taken. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed himself to be innocent.

Based upon the evidences and materials placed before him, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the learned trial court before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella Kharswan. The learned appellate court concurred with the finding given by the learned trial court and even did not interfere with the sentence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basis of the prosecution case i.e. fardbeyan has not been proved. Further station diary has neither been exhibited nor been proved. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are hearsay witness in which, the P.W.1 has been declared hostile. He further submits that the statement of P.W.5, who is the informant/injured, has not been corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made an alternate prayer that since at present the petitioner is aged about 42 years and also remained in custody for about 4 months and is living in the village and residing with his family members as such sending him back to custody at this stage of life may ruin his family.

Per-contra the learned APP opposes the prayer of acquittal and submits that there is concurrent finding of the courts below and the 'danda' blow over his left hand has been proved by the prosecution and as such the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1999 and more than 20 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation in all these years and also remained in custody for about 124 days. It is not stated by the prosecution that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused person back to prison. In this way, I find it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence.

However, the injured had suffered pains at the hand of petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioner should pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the learned trial court which shall be paid to the informant as compensation.

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.