Mahesh Manjhi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Masomat Hemia
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 ------ Mahesh Manjhi .... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Masomat Hemia … … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State Judgement Dated: 22nd February, 2024 -------- : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. -------- Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. At the outset learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that one counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State submitting therein that the opposite party No. 2, Hemia Devi who was the informant of the criminal case has expired in the year 2018 itself and the Adhyaksh Sah Gram Pradhan of Silfer Gram has also issued a certificate to that effect and the said death certificate has been annexed along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State vide Annexure-A and a report has also been received from the officer-in-charge, Ramgarh, P.S. Dumka. 3. From perusal of the said death certificate it appears that the opposite party No. 2, Hemia Devi has died on 18.01.2018 and as such the name of opposite party No. 2 is directed to be deleted. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the Judgement dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka, in Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2012, whereby and where under the appeal preferred by this petitioner has been
Legal Reasoning
dismissed by confirming the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, on 20.12.2011, in connection with Ramgarh-Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 39 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 660 of 1998, / T.R. Case No. 1568 of 2011, whereby and where under the petitioner with other accused persons was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 467 of -2- Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he was convicted therein and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and further the petitioner was sentenced for three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. will be given. 5. The case of prosecution was based on the written report of the informant Most. Hemiya and as per the written report the accused persons have manufactured a forged adoption deed in her name by stating Yasoda Devi, D/O Baijnath Manjhi in her place and thus by impersonating, a adoption deed was registered by making conspiracy by accused persons namely Mahapaty Manjhi, Yasoda Devi, Baijnath Manjhi, Mahesh Manjhi and Dular Manjhi and when knowledge about the said forged document was received from Nandlal Manjhi, then certified copy of the deed was acquired and then she came to know that by that adoption deed, S/O Mahapati Manjhi was taken as adopted son. It is also stated in the said written report that she has not given any thumb impression at the said adoption deed. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 39 of 1998 was registered and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Trial Court below i.e. the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 467 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he was sentenced as above. 7. Further being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka on 20.12.2011, in connection with Ramgarh-Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 39 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 1998 and T.R. Case No. 1568 of 2011, this petitioner had preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2012, where the learned Appellate Court below by order dated 28.04.2011 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgement of conviction and order of sentence by the learned Court below, which is under challenge. -3- Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner- 8. At the outset it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 467 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of charge of committing forgery on the Adoption Deed for which admittedly a Title Suit No. 157 of 1998 was filed. Further, it has been pointed out that this petitioner does not want to argue this case on merit of the judgement of conviction and therefore, he has confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. 9. It has been pointed out that since the matter has already been decided in the Title Suit No. 157 of 1998 by the Court of learned Sub-Judge No.-II, Dumka, with respect to the alleged forged Adoption Deed No. 118 of 1998, which is the subject matter of the present criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and this petitioner has already remained in jail for about one month in this case and he has been suffering the trauma and misery of this criminal case for a long period of time since 1998 i.e. about 26 years and as such a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence after confirming the judgement of conviction passed by the learned Courts below. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State-
Legal Reasoning
10. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the Courts below including the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have convicted the petitioner for committing the offence punishable under Section 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence awarded is three years and there is no illegality in the impugned order and therefore, this Criminal Revision Application is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Further, it has been submitted that since the petitioner do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore, let the judgement of conviction be confirmed and so far as sentence is concerned the learned A.P.P. did not controvert the fact that this petitioner has already remained in jail for about one month and there is nothing on the record to show about his criminal history and therefore, in this view of the matter a suitable order on the point of sentence may be passed. -4- Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 Appraisal & Findings 12. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records. 13. It is found that this petitioner has been convicted by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under Section 419 of Indian Penal Code and further simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and the same has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court below on 28.04.2017. 14. Since the petitioner does not want to argue this case on merit i.e. on the point of judgement of conviction and therefore, this Court upholds the judgement of conviction passed by both the Courts below against this petitioner in connection with Ramgarh-Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 39 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 1998, / T.R. Case No. 1568 of 2011 for the offence under Section 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So far as sentence is concerned it is found that this case is of the year 1998 and this petitioner has been suffering the trauma and misery of the criminal case since the last 26 years. Further, it is found that there is nothing on the record to show about the criminal history of the petitioner. Further, it is also evident from the record that it is a case for committing forgery and cheating by personation with respect to the Adoption Deed which was the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 157 of 1998, which has already been decided by the learned Court of Sub-Judge-II, Dumka. 16. In this view of the matter, it is found that no useful purpose would be served to send the petitioner again in jail and the purpose of justice would be meted out if the order of sentence is modified accordingly. 17. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, on 20.12.2011 and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court below by Judgement dated 28.04.2017, is hereby -5- Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 set aside and the same is modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the term of the period already undergone by him and further he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation in order to give it to legal heir or kith and kin or any close relative to the victim (Masomat Hemia Devi) who is dead and in case of default of payment of fine the petitioner is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 18. Since the petitioner is on bail and therefore, three months’ time is allowed to the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine the petitioner is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the legal heir or kith and kin or any close relative of the victim (Masomat Hemia Devi) by way of compensation. 19. The learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the petitioner, then he will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine, by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the petitioner serve the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 20. The petitioner may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment the petitioner deposit the fine amount, he shall be released forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and he shall be released and / discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds accordingly. The learned Court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the petitioner, the notice shall be sent to the legal heir or kith and kin or any close relative of the victim (Masomat Hemia Devi) since deceased, and on his or her appearance the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the petitioner, shall be disbursed to them as the concerned learned trial Court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Dumka, if required. -6- Cr. Revision No. 897 of 2017 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, with modification in order of sentence as above. 22. Let the Lower Court Records and a copy of this judgement be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)