2026:JHHC:1053 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2017 ----- Gura Tiriya, son of Late Ladura Tiriya, resident of Village-Sarbil, P.O. Noamundi, P.S. Noamundi, District- West Singhbhum at Chaibasa … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nitish Kumar Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ------ Order No. 14/Dated 15th January, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Nitish Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 263 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant, Gura Tiriya has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323/ 379/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sections 323/34 of IPC and R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Sections 379/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for three months and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he is only challenging/assailing the order of sentence dated 13.04.2017 and as far as the judgment of conviction is concerned, he is not challenging/assailing the same. 4. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323/379/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for 1 year and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, out of which the 2026:JHHC:1053 2 appellant Gura Tiriya has remained in jail for 9 months and 26 days out of R.I. of 1 year of the sentence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is a poor person and the sole breadwinner of the family, who has to look after his family. 6. On the aforesaid premise, prayer has been made for reducing the sentence of the appellant to the sentence already undergone. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer of the appellant on the premise that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a very lenient view and no further lenient view ought to be taken by this Court. 8. This Court has carefully gone through the material available on record. It transpires that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely Ladura Tiriya and Guru Tiriya, who were convicted under Sections 323/379/411/34 of IPC and one of the appellant, namely, Ladura Tiriya has died during the pendency of the appeal and thus, the instant appeal stands abated against the Ladura Tiriya vide order dated 01.05.2024 passed by this Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and also the fact that out of 1 year of the rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has already served 9 months and 26 days, in judicial custody and is facing the agony of criminal trial for more than 15 years. 10. As the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2017 has not been assailed on behalf of the appellant, therefore, there is no interference, in the abovesaid judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 263 of 2012. 11. This Court is of considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is to be modified to the period of sentence already undergone. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 323/379/34 of 2026:JHHC:1053 3 IPC is modified to the extent the period of sentence already undergone. 12. Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal, being Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 978 of 2017 is allowed, subject to above-said modification in order of sentence only. 13. Since the appellant, Gura Tiriya, is already on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. 14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 15.01.2026 Umesh /Abhishek