1. Jyotish Yadav 2. Munilal Yadav 3. Mahendra Yadav 4. Sadanand Yadav v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jitni Devi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 627 of 2015 1. Jyotish Yadav 2. Munilal Yadav 3. Mahendra Yadav 4. Sadanand Yadav Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jitni Devi ….. Petitioners ….. Opp. Parties WITH Criminal Revision No. 880 of 2015 Jitni Devi ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jyotish Yadav 3. Muni Lal Yadav 4. Mahendra Yadav 5. Sadanand Yadav 6. Naresh Yadav 7. Dhananjai Yadav 8. Arbind Yadav 9. Jawahar Yadav ….. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Petitioner For the State For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
-------- : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Advocate. [In Cr. Revision No. 627 of 2015] : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate. : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. [In Cr. Revision No. 880 of 2015] --------- Order No. 16/Dated: 16th May, 2024 Both the criminal revisions arising out of common judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2011/10 of 2014, whereby the appellate court has modified the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in Misc. Petition Case No. 2 of 2010, imposing only fine against the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 627/2015 (opposite party nos. 2 to 5 of Cr. Revision No. Page 1 of 7 880/2015) of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and one (1) month S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 627/2015 (opposite party nos. 2 to 5 of Cr. Revision No. 880/2015) were further directed to deposit the fine within 30 days from the date of receiving of the order and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three (3) months simple imprisonment punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and one (1) month S.I. under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been ordered to run separately, by which the learned S.D.J.M., Godda vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2011 convicted and sentenced to opposite party nos. 2 to 9 of Cr. Revision No. 880 of 2015 for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to these revisions is that FIR was lodged by one Jitni Devi stating inter alia that on 13.03.2007 around 2:30 PM, she returned to her house, meanwhile all the accused persons, eight in number, came abusing her and on instigation of Jyotish Yadav, his sons gave brutal assault to the informant saying that she regularly calls the police. Meanwhile, Mahendra Yadav, Muni Lal Yadav and Jawahar Yadav caught hold of her and assaulted with fists, slaps. Sadanand Yadav, Dhananjay Yadav, Arbind Yadav entered into her house and they also assaulted the fists, slaps and lathi resulting injury on her chest and shoulder. Naresh Yadav gave a hit on her abdomen with the point of lathi. On the basis of above information, Page 2 of 7 FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 323 & 448 of the I.P.C. The accused persons denied the accusation levelled against them and claimed for trial. 3. After conclusion of trial, initially vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2009, all the accused persons were held guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 448 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarded any substantive sentence of imprisonment, they were released on probation extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of six months. 4. It appears that in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order, the convicts have executed bond on 01.12.2009, thereafter, an application was filed by the informant before the concerned successor trial court on 31.05.2010, almost the fag end and last date of the expiry of term of bond executed by convicts stating inter alia that the convicts have violated the terms and conditions of the bond and again, six accused persons named in the application have again scuffled and assaulted to the informant, hence, the substantive sentence of imprisonment may be passed. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2011 after conducting inquiry into the matter and obtained a report from the concerned Probation Officer found the allegations to be true and recalled the order of benefit given under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the convicts and sentenced them to undergo six months simple imprisonment for each offence under Sections 323 and 448 of the I.P.C. directing both the sentences to be run concurrently. 5. The convicts, who were awarded the substantive sentence of imprisonment on account of violation of terms and conditions of the bond executed under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Criminal Page 3 of 7 Revision No. 80 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2014, which were heard at length and the learned appellate court after reappraisal and evaluation of prosecution evidence and other materials has recorded findings at Page-5 of the judgment as under:- “Although, Probation Officers has given report in a vague manner that the accused persons have committed battery to the informant but informant herself given names of four convict persons as a breaker of provision of Probation of Offenders Act. So far as the other accused persons are concerned the lower court has imposed six months rigorous imprisonment needs to be interference because the offence alleged against the accused persons namely, Jyotish Yadav, Munilal Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Sadanand Yadav under Sections 323 / 448 I.P.C. is simple in nature and accused persons are facing the trial for more than eight years they were going through economical as well as physical and mental agony. So, I think proper to rectify the sentence given by the lower court and the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is imprisonment for one year, or with fine of Rs.1,000/- or both. Similarly, the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC is imprisonment with one year, or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both. So, considering the nature of offence and long trial of case I think proper to impose fine against four accused persons namely, Jyotish Yadav, Munilal Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Sadanand Yadav of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months of the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and one-month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run consecutively. The appellants namely, Jyotish Yadav, Munilal Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Sadanand Yadav are directed to deposit the fine before the lower court within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receiving of the order and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and one-month Page 4 of 7 simple imprisonment under Section 448 IPC and both the sentences will run separately. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.” 6. The judgment of the trial court was modified by the appellate court. Against the judgment of the appellate court, the informant has filed Criminal Revision No. 880 of 2015 against all the accused persons/convicts arrayed as O.P. No. 2 to 9. Similarly, the convicts have also filed a revision against the appellate court order bearing Criminal Revision No. 627 of 2015. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for convicts that the learned trial court has initially passed the judgment and order in G.R. Case No. 255/2007 holding the convicts guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 448 of the I.P.C. and considering the first offence of the convicts, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to them and they were released after furnishing the required bond under Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act. The bond was executed on 01.12.2009 extending for six months. 8. An application complaining the violation of terms and conditions of bond was filed by the informant on the last date of expiry of the period of bond i.e. 31.05.2010 manipulating a story that since the month of January 2010, the convicts were violating the terms and conditions of the bond and again assaulted her. 9. The learned appellate court has also found that the report obtained from Probation Officer was vague and superfluous and the sentence of the convicts was reduced to fine only modifying the substantive sentence of imprisonment award by the trial court. The role played by the informant at the fag end of expiry of bond was malicious and the inquiry conducted by the concerned trial court was also unilaterally and beyond any basis and proof of any specific overt act of the convicts. Therefore, the limited interference by the appellate court in the aforesaid judgment by imposing sentence of fine upon the Page 5 of 7 convicts are absolutely, unwarranted and not legally sustainable, which is fit to be set aside and the order originally passed by the concerned trial court extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act to the convicts is fit to be upheld and confirmed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has rightly held that the convicts have violated the terms and conditions of the bond, therefore, sentenced them adequately with imprisonment. The learned appellate court has given extra weightage to the convicts by reducing their sentence and imposing fine only for the offences committed by them, in spite of the fact that there was a repetition of the crime with the same lady informant and violation of the conditions and bond. Therefore, order of the appellate court is not justified under law and is fit to be set aside. 11. I have gone through entire case record and impugned orders passed by learned trial court as well as appellate court and also the enquiry conducted by concerned trial court in respect of violation of conditions of bond executed under Section 4 of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 by the convicts/petitioners. It is also obvious that appellate Court in its judgment has made castigating remark about the malicious report submitted by Probation Officer and accepted by the concerned trial court. It was a case wherein no injury report of the informant was brought on record, rather it is alleged that she was slapped and assaulted by fists, that also only against the sons of the co-accused Jyotish Yadav. Land dispute between the parties is also admitted to be going on since long. Even if just after one month from the execution of bond by the petitioners / convicts, no complaint was made by the informant anywhere nor the matter was reported before the concerned trial court stating therein that there is violation of terms and conditions of the bond. It was purposely brought to the notice of the court on the last date of expiry of the term of the bond i.e. Page 6 of 7 31.05.2010 which clearly shows the malafide intention of the informant to any how get the petitioners / convicts punished with substantive sentence of imprisonment. The learned appellate court has ignored the above aspect while imposing sentence by way of reduction of the same into fine. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion in reasons, the initial order passed by the learned trial court extending the benefit of provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 to the convicts appears to be genuine and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners/convicts have maintained peace and be of good behaviour till the expiry of the term of the bond. Therefore, no question of imposing sentence of imprisonment or fine as imposed by concerned trial court as well as appellate court is warranted under law. Therefore, both the orders imposing sentence passed by concerned trial court and the appellate court against the petitioners/convicts is hereby set aside. 13. The revision filed by informant bearing no. Cr. Revision No. 880 of 2015 stands dismissed and the revision filed by convicts i.e. Cr. Revision No. 627 of 2015 against the order of imposition of fine against them is hereby allowed and their initial conviction and release
Decision
on probation bond is upheld. 14. Accordingly, both these revisions are disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil-Simran/- Page 7 of 7