Sanjay Mandal Son of late Sukhdeo Mandal, Resident of Village Firojpur, P.S. Meharma, District v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Sanjay Mandal Son of late Sukhdeo Mandal, Resident of Village Firojpur, P.S. Meharma, District Godda. … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Adv. : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 18.11.2024
Legal Reasoning
By Court:- Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2006 and 06.03.2006 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, No.-II, Godda in Sessions Case No.146 of 2002 (83 of 2002) whereby and whereunder appellant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 1 Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case is based on fardbeyan of Anil Kumar Sah (informant) stating inter alia that on 18.06.2001 at about 08:00 P.M., he and others were attacked by a group of 30-35 people while returning home from Firojpur Haat. The group of people, including both men and women, was damaging banners and hoardings displayed to curb prostitution. When Anil Kumar Sah confronted them, he was attacked by several individuals with swords and other weapons, resulting in injuries to him and others. The motive behind the attack was the assailants' dissatisfaction with the villagers' efforts to curb prostitution. Informant gave a statement to the police, leading to the registration of Meharma P.S. Case No. 101 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/341/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case No.83 of 2002 was registered, thereafter, the case was Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 2 transferred to the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal which was registered as Sessions Case No.146 of 2002. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced: Exhibit 1 : Signature of informant on fardbeyan Exhibit 2 : Formal F.I.R. 6. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the point of non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1958’) to the appellant to which he deserves. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and never convicted for any offence. He has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of the I.P.C. It is Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 3 further submitted that the genesis of occurrence is a movement of women towards curbing the breach of prostitution. The appellant was also found to be a member of the said mob. The incident has happened in the year 2001 and now two decades have been lapsed. Appellant was all along on bail and since the above occurrence also, he has never indulged in any criminal activity. Therefore, the appellant deserves the benefit of the Act of 1958 instead of inflicting sentence of substantive imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court and this appeal may be disposed of. 8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection regarding the above ground taken by the appellant rather he has defended the impugned judgment on merits. 9. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that at the time of hearing on the point of sentence, learned trial court has categorically mentioned that it is first offence of the appellant and there was to resist a pious movement and incident took place in a sudden manner but did not extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 on the ground that appellant was armed with deadly weapon and inflicted sword injury to Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 4 some persons. The reason assigned by the learned trial court appears to be very general and usual which cannot come into category of special reasons for declining the benefit of the Act of 1958. 10. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of injury sustained by the informant and the offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. Therefore, appellant is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court is also directed to release the appellant giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court. The learned trial court may also call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 5 so desired and release the appellant on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the learned trial court. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
Decision
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin Cr.A(SJ) No.407 of 2006 Page | 6