1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shyamlal Mahto Son of Latu Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shyamlal Mahto Son of Latu Mahto Kishun Mahto Son of Budhan Mahto Basudeo Mahto Son of Lekho Mahto Dinesh Yadav Son of Ram Chandra Yadav Banshi Mahto Son of Chuto Sao Gopal Mahto Son of Shyamlal Mahto Ganesh Mahto Son of Sri Barlam Mahto Bandhan Mahto Son of Dumarchand Mahto All residents of Dughiyano, Post Office and Police Station Birni, District Giridih. … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Adv. : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 19.11.2024 By Court:- The service report received from Birani Police Station, District Giridih reveals that appellant No.1 namely Shyamlal Mahto died on 07.01.2021. 2. In view of the above, this appeal stands abated qua appellant No.1 Shyamlal Mahto. Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 1
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. S.K. Murtty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court-IV, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No.102 of 2001 whereby and whereunder all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., appellant No.2 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and remaining seven appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. However, no separate sentences for the offences under Sections 447/149 and 341/149 of the I.P.C. 5. The prosecution case is based on written information of Pran Mahto (informant) stating inter alia that he purchased a Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 2 piece of land in Mauja Khergarha through registered sale deeds and was in possession of it. On 27.09.1999, while the informant's son was ploughing the field, the accused, Shyamlal Mahto, came there and told that he was ploughing more land than his share. It is further alleged that while the informant was having a discussion with accused Shyamlal Mahto, the other accused persons arrived, who were armed with weapons, subsequently, thereafter Shyamlal Mahto ordered for assault and the accused persons started assaulting the informant, his son and his wife with various weapons causing injuries to them. The incident was witnessed by laborers working nearby and the informant lodged the case after receiving medical treatment. On the basis of written information of the informant, Birani P.S. Case No. 81 of 1999 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/323/324/341 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 3 case was committed to the Court of Sessions, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih for trial and disposal. 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. 7. The defence has also examined two witnesses namely D.W.-1 Surya Narayan Ram and D.W.-2 Shyam Lal. 8. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants to which they deserve. It is submitted that the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Section 323, 324, 147, 447, 341 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and maximum sentence is awarded to the extent of two years. It is apparent Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 4 from the impugned judgment and order that the appellants have taken plea of being first offender having no criminal antecedent and no previous conviction. The learned trial court has also pointed out the above facts but without recording any special reasons to not grant the benefit of the Act of 1958, has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment against the appellants. The genesis of occurrence is bonafide land dispute between the parties and cultivation of paddy crops from the disputed land. There was no pre-meditation rather the occurrence took place in a sudden manner upon sudden quarrel. Therefore, the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment and this appeal may be allowed. 10. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there are three injured persons in this case who were assaulted by sharp cutting weapon as well as hard and blunt substances and women folk were also not spared from assault, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 5 imposed substantive sentence of imprisonment against the appellants which requires no interference by way of this appeal and is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contention of respective parties. It appears that the prosecution case was initiated on the basis of written information given by the informant stating inter alia that while his son was ploughing his purchased land of Khata No.1/35, Plot No.5, area 2 acres 20 decimals situated in Mauja Khargarha and was having a discussion with the accused Shyamlal Mahto other accused persons arrived armed with weapons and surrounded the informant and his son. Shyamlal Mahto allegedly ordered the assault and the accused began attacking the informant, his son and his wife with various weapons, causing injuries. Jamuna Mahto fled after sustaining injuries, while the informant and his wife were also injured in the attack. 12. In the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined out of them P.W.-3 Uma Devi (wife of the informant), P.W.-4 Jamuna Mahto (son of the informant) and Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 6 P.W.-6 Pran Mahto (informant) are injured witnesses and P.W.-7 Dr. Subodh Singh is the doctor who had examined the injured persons. 13. It appears that specific role has been assigned against the appellants for causing injuries to the informant party but at the same time, it is also quite obvious that there was land dispute between the parties and the scuffle took place in a sudden manner and injuries are also found to be simple in nature. There is also no doubt that it was first offence of the appellants, therefore, considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of crime committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. Therefore, appellants are 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 appellants giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 7 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 so desired and release the appellants on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants 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. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
Decision
16. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Sachin (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 8