2026:JHHC:21531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 674 of 2009 ------ 1. Allaudin Ansari, Son of Late Salamat Mian, 2. Tabajudin Ansari, Son of Allaudin Ansari, Both resident of village Bari, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist. Palamau … .... …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate (V.C.) Mr. Brij Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 30.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 22.06.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Palamau in S.T. No. 156 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellant No. 1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year while the appellant No. 2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 148 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year under Section 148 and further S.I. for six month under Section 323 of the IPC. Both the sentences of appellant No. 2 were directed to run, concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 22.11.2003, at about 02:00 pm, the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant namely Sherun Bibi (P.W.-3) was carrying the paddy 2026:JHHC:21531 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 674 of 2009 2 crop to her home, in the meantime, the accused persons armed with Lathi, Danda and Farsa threatened and declined from carrying the paddy crop. The sister-in-law of the informant came to her house and informed the same to the informant and nephew of the informant namely Asmul Haque (P.W.-5). Then, the informant and his nephew reached the paddy field, where they saw that Tabajuddin Ansari was armed with Garasa with other accused persons, who started assaulting, due to which, the informant fell down on the paddy field, when, the sister-in-law came to rescue, she was also assaulted and got injured. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No. 156 of 2006 was registered and charges were framed. The charges were explained in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from occurrence, innocence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 2026:JHHC:21531 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 674 of 2009 3 6. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, found the appellants guilty for the offence and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of this judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have remained in custody for about one and half months out of 1 years maximum imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and more than two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellants have sufficiently been punished for their guilt and again sending the appellants for sustaining the rest period of imprisonment, would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by them to meet the ends of justice in this case. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Per contra, Learned Spl.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, she has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2003 and the appellants have already sustained one and half months custody out of maximum one year custody as awarded 2026:JHHC:21531 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 674 of 2009 4 by the learned trial Court, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice. Analysis, reasons and decision:- 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that the learned trial court has held the appellant No. 1 guilty for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. whereas appellant No. 2 for the offence under Section 148 & 323 of the IPC. After perusal of evidence of injured witness, It appears that injured as well as other ocular witnesses have categorically proved the role of appellants in assaulting the injured which finds corroboration from evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Chaudhary (P.W.-6) and since the learned counsel for the appellant has also confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence, therefore, the conviction of the appellants passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. 11. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and since then, more than two decades have elapsed and the appellants have suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for about one and half months, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellants. 2026:JHHC:21531 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 674 of 2009 5 12. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellants is modified to the extent of period already undergone by them. 13. In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 14. Appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026