1. Lalit Mahto 2. Rajendra Mahto 3. Kailigadar Mahto @ Kale @ Kela State v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1737 of 2003 -------- 1. Lalit Mahto 2. Rajendra Mahto 3. Kailigadar Mahto @ Kale @ Kela State of Jharkhand ..… Appellants ….. Respondent Versus --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants For the Respondent : : --------- Ms. Anjali Kumari, Amicus Mr. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. --------- 11/16.06.2023 In pursuance of the issuance of notice by this court regarding whereabouts of the appellants, report dated 14.05.2023 has been received, which indicates that appellant no. 1 is dead. 2. In view of the aforesaid report, instant appeal stands abated against appellant no.1 namely Lalit Mahto. 3. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2003, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 150/94/67/03, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 341 and 325/34 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. Further, they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. The prosecution case, as per the statement given by the informant, in brief is that on 03.11.1993, at about 11 p.m., appellants threatened and attacked and wounded the informant and her family with Tangi and Lathi when the informant and his family was guarding the paddy cultivated on the land she had taken from one of the accused persons- Madhuri Mahto in ‘Batai’, but the accused appellants, when it was time to harvest the paddy, started threatening the informant that they will forcibly harvest the paddy away. -2- 6. Learned Amicus for the appellants made following submissions assailing the impugned judgment and order. (i) The impugned judgment is bad in law for non-consideration of the evidence of all the P.W.s properly. (ii) Learned trial court has failed to consider that P.W.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses. (iii) Learned court below failed to appreciate that Tangi blow was given only by Madhuri Mahto and the insize wounds all relates to Tangi Blow which cannot be attributed to the present appellants and therefore, appellants cannot be convicted under Section 325 or under Section 341. (iv) Learned court failed to appreciate that informant and her husband and sons accused the appellants only to implicate Madhuri Mahto and her family (v) Learned court below failed to appreciate that accused persons belonged to different village and therefore, presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence at 11 p.m. at night is highly doubtful and seems to be motivated. Learned counsel, after the aforesaid argument, made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1993 and the appellants have suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court may kindly, at least, modify the sentence for the period already undergone as the surviving appellants are aged about 58 & 52 years respectively and they remained in custody for few days and never misused the privilege of bail and further the appellants are having no criminal antecedent. 7. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants. However, she fairly -3- submits that as per record, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, and looking to the comprehensive facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have considerably proved the case of the prosecution and the findings of the learned trial court; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction and thus, the same is sustained. 9. Now, coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the surviving appellants with respect to sentence awarded to them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their life would not serve the ends of justice since no motive or element of planning has been proved in the instant case and admittedly the appellants remained in custody for few days. 10. Thus, on the point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took place in the year 1998 and about 25 years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the surviving appellants were also in jail for few days and they never misused the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any criminal activity; thus, they have a chance to reform. 11. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered view that without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. -4- 12. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court, is hereby modified to the extent that surviving appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. 13. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.20,000/- each, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order, before the D.L.S.A., Dumka; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. 14. With the aforesaid observation, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal appeal
Decision
stands disposed of. 15. Appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 16. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills as professional fee subject to the maximum ceiling as per the existing guidelines. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dumka and the appellants through the Officer-in-Charge of concerned police station. 18. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. sm/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)