1. Bachhu Mahto 2. Ramdeo Mahto Both sons of Late Lal Jee Mahto 3 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Babajee Mahto, Son of Bhuma Mahto, resident of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 114 of 2015 ------ 1. Bachhu Mahto 2. Ramdeo Mahto Both sons of Late Lal Jee Mahto 3. Kutan Mahto 4. Dhaneshwar Mahto Both sons of Late Nepali Mahto. All resident of Village – Chandpur, P.S. – Jasidih, P.O. – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Babajee Mahto, Son of Bhuma Mahto, resident of Village- Chandpur, P.S. + P.O. – Jaridih, District – Deoghar. .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. : Mr. Vishal Kumar Binay, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 12.04.2024 Pronounced On -28.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 2009, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.05.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar passed in G.R. No. 440 of 2001 / T.R. No. 1038 of 2009, arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 125 of Page 1 of 8 2001, by which petitioners were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for offence under Section 148 I.P.C., simple imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 323 I.P.C., simple imprisonment of fifteen days for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. has been maintained and confirmed by the appellate court. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 14.07.2001, at about 8 AM, informant was ploughing his field on Plot No. 1035 along with his cousin brother Bhuma Mahto. Meanwhile, accused persons named in the F.I.R., who happens to be agnates of the informant came to the field armed with various weapons like iron rod, tangi and lathi and started abusing the informant and his cousin brother and drove away the cattle from the plot. It is further alleged that upon protest by the informant, he was surrounded by the accused persons, who started assaulting them by lathi and iron rod, as a result, they sustained injuries. On raising alarm, several villagers assembled there and the accused persons fled away from the plot. It is claimed that the above occurrence took place due to the land dispute between the parties. Page 2 of 8 On the basis of above information, first information report was lodged being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 125 of 2001 dated 14.07.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons (petitioners), who denied the charges and claimed for the trial. After framing of charge, one of the accused namely, Lal Jee Mahto died and his name was deleted during trial. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and certain documentary evidences were also adduced. 5. On the other hand, the case of defence was denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute and some documents were also adduced showing previous litigation and also counter-case lodged by them against the informant-party. Exhibit-A is certified copy of Judgment dated 27.02.03 of S.T. No. 349 / 2001. Exhibit-B is F.I.R. of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 17/2001 dated 24.01.01. Exhibit-C is certified copy of Judgment dated 26.07.05 of G.R. No. 455 of 2000. Exhibit-D is certified copy of extract Khatiyan of Jamabandi No. 10. Page 3 of 8 Exhibit-E is extract copy of voter list of Ward No. 3 of Deoghar Assembly Constituency in the year 1995. Exhibit-F is certified copy of order sheet dated 12.12.205 to 20.02.07 of S.A. No. 367 / 2005. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidences of both the parties, the learned Trial Court held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 341, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo as stated above. 7. The petitioners have challenged their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court by filing an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2009, which was heard and disposed by Additional Sessions Judge, 4th, Deoghar, whereby and whereunder, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners was upheld and confirmed and appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the land dispute between the parties is admitted and due to bonafide land dispute between the parties, some scuffle took place and exchange of assault took place from both sides. For the same date of occurrence, a cross-case was also lodged by the petitioners Page 4 of 8 against the informant-party of this case, which was not tried by the same Court as per norms of the law. The offences were not exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, but no recourse under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. was taken by the concerned Court and the accused persons of that case were acquitted. It is further submitted that for the lands in question, a title suit was also filed, which was decided in favour of the petitioners and second appeal is still pending for adjudication, which has been preferred by the informant-party of this case bearing Second Appeal No. 367 of 2005. 9. Admittedly, both parties have sustained injuries which have been opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and some sharp cut injury only skin deep which is of trivial nature. The genesis of occurrence, as alleged in the first information report, is admittedly land dispute between the parties. There was no pre-meditation for causing any particular injury to any of the injured persons. It is fairly argued that since there was case and counter-case between the parties and admittedly some exchange of assault took place between the parties and both parties got injuries, which was found simple in nature and it was first offence of the petitioners as no previous conviction has been brought on record. They are law abiding citizens and undertake to Page 5 of 8 maintain peace and be of good behaviour, but the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to extend the benefits of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, for which they are entitled. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that petitioners have been held quilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and also causing voluntarily simple hurt by sharp cut weapon. They have taken law into their own hands and indulged in grabbing the land of the informant. Hence, they do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence and there is no infirmity for illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, calling any interference by this Court and the same is fit to be dismissed. 11. So far benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, admittedly it is the first offence of the petitioners and the learned trial court has not given any reason for not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The land dispute is admitted between the parties; decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners; second appeal is pending; admittedly, the scuffle took place in a sudden manner due to land dispute between the Page 6 of 8 parties; petitioners have no criminal background and no previous conviction; as such, the same may be considered. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 13. It appears from perusal of record that in course of trial, defence has adduced documentary evidence, which shows that the land dispute was going on between the parties since long and they were under litigating terms, but in none of the cases, the petitioners have been convicted for any offence. The prosecution has also not brought on record regarding any previous conviction of the petitioners, therefore, it is their first offence, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court as well as appellate court without assigning any special reason as per requirement of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14. In my considered view, the petitioners deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for the offence alleged to be committed by him. 15. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, impugned judgments of conviction of petitioners requires no interference Page 7 of 8 and confirmed, but having regard to age, character, antecedents and facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed to be released upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment by each of the petitioners with one surety for maintaining peace and good behavior for a term of one year from the date of the furnishing bond before the concerned trial court. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the Probation Officer periodically and in case of failure of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 16. In light of above observation, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 28/06/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 8 of 8