Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Mukhtar Alam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 1392, 1422, 1441 of 2006
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Gautam Kumar, Kiswanti Minj, Satya Shatakshi.
For the Respondents: Prabir Chatterjee, Nehala Sharmim, Shailesh Kr. Sinha.
The main legal point established is the consideration of compromise and the age of the accused in determining the appropriate sentencing.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under IPC and Explosive Substance Act - 147, 148, 337, 307/149 of IPC and 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between parties resulting in physical assault, bomb throwing, and injuries to several individuals. The prosecution alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Explosive Substance Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a compromise had taken place between the parties, leading to the compounding of charges under section 323 of the IPC. The court also noted the deaths of some appellants and the advanced age of the remaining appellants. It upheld the conviction but took a lenient view on sentencing due to the compromise and the age of the appellants.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the compromise, the impact of the deaths of some appellants, and the appropriate sentencing considering the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties, the deaths of some appellants, and the advanced age of the remaining appellants as factors influencing the sentencing decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court modified the order of sentence, taking into account the compromise and the age of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
1. All the aforesaid appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2005 in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 170 of 2003, Sahibganj, Jharkhand, whereby and where under all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 147, 148, 337, 307/149 of IPC and 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act read with section 149 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months u/s 147 of IPC, R.I. for one year u/s 148 of IPC, RI for 3 months of u/s 337 of IPC, R.I. for 5 years u/s 307/149 with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and R.I. for 5 years u/s 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act read with section 149 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine the appellants were further directed to undergo S.I. for six months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It appears from the record that the some of the appellants have died during the course of pendency the appeals namely Appellant no. 1 Jamil Sheikh @ Jamil Akhtar and appellant no. 3 Matin Sheikh of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1441 of 2006.
Learned Spl. P.P. submitted the counter affidavit in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1441 of 2006 stating therein that the two appellants namely appellant no. 1-Jamil Sheikh @ Jamil Akhtar and appellant no. 3 Matin Sheikh have died and their death certificate has also been annexed with the counter affidavit by which it appears that the appellant no. 1-Jamil Sheikh @ Jamil akhtar has died on 29.04.2022 and appellant no. 3 Matin Sheikh has died on 15.05.2019.
Further in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1422 of 2006 the appellant no. 1 Sultan Sheikh has died and the learned Addl. P.P. appearing in this appeal has filed counter affidavit by which it appears that the appellant no. 1 Sultan Sheikh has died on 20.01.2013.
Further in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1392 of 2006 all the appellants are alive.
Learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants in the aforesaid appeals have submitted that the above said appellants(Appellant no. 1 Jamil Sheikh @ Jamil Akhtar and appellant no. 3 Matin Sheikh of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1441 of 2006 and the appellant no. 1 Sultan Sheikh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1422 of 2006) in above the respective appeal have died and further submitted that no close/near relative has come forward on behalf of these appellants to continue with this appeal and therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellants that let this appeal be abated with respect to the deceased appellants.
Accordingly, these appeals get abated with respect to the deceased appellants and the aforesaid appeals will be heard with respect to the appellants who are alive and who are renumbered.
3. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of PW-11/Salim Khan whose statement was recorded by SI, S.B. Mishra of Rajmahal Police Station on 30.11.2003 at 22 hours at Referral Hospital, Rajamahal in the District of Sahibganj. Briefly stating the allegation as set out in the said fardbeyan where on 29.11.2003 at about 4 pm the informant Salim Khan (PW-11) was going from his house to Nageshwarbag which was situated at village Koylabazar within Rajmahal district Sahibganj. When he reached Nageshwarbag the accused Nasir Ahmed, Jakir Sheikh and Hasim Sheikh asked him as to where he was going and they abused him. The informant told him not to use filthy language. Thereafter, the accused Nasir Ahmed caught hold of his neck and started pressing and said to him that he would be killed. The accused Hasim Sheikh took away Rs. 500/- from his upper pocket of his shirt. The accused Jakir Sheikh assaulted him with fists. Thereafter, the accused Nasir and Jakir asked the informant to touch their feet failing which he would be killed. The informant touched their feet then all the three accused persons forgave him. Father case of the prosecution is that the informant return
