Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Gopal Sharma son of Somaru Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 582 of 2012
Decided on : 06-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34, 380, 457 – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 386(e), 313 – Punishment for causing voluntarily hurt – Punishment for wrongful restrain - Petitioners while assailing impugned judgments submitted that there was previous dispute between parties and in support of previous dispute, one judgment passed in G.R. has also been exhibited before court and Petitioner herein, has been acquitted in said case from charges under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code – Held, petitioners were convicted for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellate court acquitted petitioners for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code on technical grounds and convicted under section 325 IPC as ingredients of section 325 IPC was satisfied - Appellate court did not interfere with conviction of petitioners so far as other sections are concerned - Considering totality of facts and circumstances of this case, Court does not find any illegality or perversity or irregularity in impugned judgment of conviction of petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction - Total fine amount shall be deposited by each of petitioners before the learned trial court within a period of three months from date of communication of a copy of this Judgment to trial court. It is further directed that 50% of fine amount, so deposited, shall be remitted to the two victims of the case in equal proportion after due identification - In case, fine amount is not deposited within stipulated time frame petitioners would serve sentences as imposed by the learned appellate court - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 28.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 85/2006 whereby and whereunder the appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but modified their sentences by awarding separate sentences under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and maintaining their sentences for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No. 1426 of 2001/Tr. No. 902 of 2006 (arising out of Haidar Nagar P.S. Case No. 24/2001 dated 09.11.2001), had convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:
| Sr. No. | Name of the petitioners | Conviction by the trial court | Sentences awarded by the trial court | Comments |
| 1. | Gopal Sharma | Under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code | Only under Section 325 of IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 ½ years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for three months. | No separate sentence was awarded for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of IPC by stating that the same facts constituted different offences |
| 2. | Awadhesh Sharma | Only under Section 325 of IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months. | ||
| 3. | Birbal Sharma | |||
| 4. | Nagendra Sharma | |||
| 5. | Mantu Sharma @ Mantu Vishwakarma |
5. The learned appellate court acquitted all the petitioners from the charge under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the charge was defective and confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and maintained their sentences for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The appellate court was of the view that the reason given by the learned trial court for not awarding separate sentence for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of IPC for which the petitioners were convicted is not sustainable and was of the view that the learned trial court ought to have awarded separate sentence for each offence, because these offences are different in nature and based on different facts and separate charges are needed to be framed. Accordingly, the learned appellate court rectified these defects by making necessary amendment by way of addition in the order of sentence by invoking the provision under Section 386(e) of Cr.P.C. The appellate court had set aside the conviction of the petitioners under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, no sentence was awarded under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned appellate court modified the sentences of the petitioners, in addition to the sentences for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, by awarding separate sentences for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of IPC also which are as under:
| Sr. No. | Name of petitioners | Sentences awarded by appellate court |
| 1. | Gopal Sharma | -Rigorous Imprisonment for two months under Section 341/34 IPC, -Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 323/34 of IPC, -Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 504/34 of IPC and -Maintained the sentences under Section 325/34 IPC as awarded by the learned trial court and all the sentences were directed to concurrent |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence, consideration of the circumstances, and the imposition of appropriate sentences and fines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence provided by prosecution witnesses, the nature and gravity of the offences committed, and the petitioners' age and cri....
The court has the discretion to modify sentences by imposing fines and remitting a portion of the fine amount to the injured victims as victim compensation based on the nature and gravity of the offe....
Conviction upheld - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - X-ray report - Oral evidence of victim matches with medical evidence and injury report has been proved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent evidence from prosecution witnesses and medical reports to support the prosecution case, as well as the consideration of....
Released on admonition - Conviction modified - Trial court convicted accused for offence under Ss. 323, 341 and 379 of IPC and released other convicts, except present petitioners, under Act, 1958 on ....
The main legal point established is the importance of corroborative evidence and the explanation of delay in lodging an FIR in determining the conviction of the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
