Ram Das Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3305/98)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3305/98)
Petitioner: Ram Das Singh & Ors.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3305/98)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3305/98)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 436/149 – Sentence – All accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 years – First appellant, 80 years old and having served 6 months imprisonment – House which was gutted in fire, valued Rs 500/- only. Held that all are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each
(Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In this case this appellant stands convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They jointly filed an appeal before the High Court, Patna, which remained in the list for ten years. On 13.11.97 when the case was taken up for hearing before a learned Single Judge he found that the Counsel for the appellant was not present. So, he kept it aside and took up the matter during the post lunch session. Even then no body appeared for the appellants. Hence he proceeded to hear the Government advocate and perused the records and disposed of the matter as per the impugned judgment by which the conviction and sentence were confirmed as against all the appellants.
3. The gravamen of the allegation is that these appellants went to demolish a wall and when that was objected by the owner of the wall, PW-2 – Ramkeshwar Dusadh an exhortation was made by the first appellant to set fire to the house. That exhortation was responded by the third accused by setting fire to the house and the whole house was gutted.
4. Learned Counsel submitted that first appellant is eighty years old now and even if it is admitted that he made the exhortation, the period he had already undergone in jail (amount six months) can be treated as sufficient sentence for him. As for the remaining appellants he made a plea for reducing the sentence. Instead of going deep into the evidence, he pointed out that the destroyed house was valued only at about Rs.500/-, and on the strength of it pleaded that those appellants may also be given the benefit of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
5. While we are inclined to show some leniency to the appellant in the matter of sentence, we are also mindful of the matter of sentence we are also mindful of the grievance of PW-3 whose house though small in the eyes of the appellants, was gutted down. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by altering the sentence to the period already undergone by such of the appellants and also by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each. In default of payment of fine within two months from today in the trial court, the Appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. On realisation of fine the trial court shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- out of that sum to PW-2 – Ramkeshwar Dusadh.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this case this appellant stands convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They jointly filed an appeal before the High Court, Patna, which remained in the list for ten years. On 13.11.97 when the case was taken up for hearing before a learned Single Judge he found that the Counsel for the appellant was not present. So, he kept it aside and took up the matter during the post lunch session. Even then no body appeared for the appellants. Hence he proceeded to hear the Government advocate and perused the records and disposed of the matter as per the impugned judgment by which the conviction and sentence were confirmed as against all the appellants.
3. The gravamen of the allegation is that these appellants went to demolish a wall and when that was objected by the owner of the wall, PW-2 – Ramkeshwar Dusadh an exhortation was made by the first appellant to set fire to the house. That exhortation was responded by the third accused by setting fire to the house and the whole house was gutted.
4. Learned Counsel submitted that first appellant is eighty years old now and even if it is admitted that he made the exhortation, the period he had already undergone in jail (amount six months) can be treated as sufficient sentence for him. As for the remaining appellants he made a plea for reducing the sentence. Instead of going deep into the evidence, he pointed out that the destroyed house was valued only at about Rs.500/-, and on the strength of it pleaded that those appellants may also be given the benefit of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
5. While we are inclined to show some leniency to the appellant in the matter of sentence, we are also mindful of the matter of sentence we are also mindful of the grievance of PW-3 whose house though small in the eyes of the appellants, was gutted down. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by altering the sentence to the period already undergone by such of the appellants and also by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each. In default of payment of fine within two months from today in the trial court, the Appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. On realisation of fine the trial court shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- out of that sum to PW-2 – Ramkeshwar Dusadh.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
