1. Sakruddin Mian S/o Late Navin Mian 2. Ismail Mian @ Ansari S/o Late v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 1. Sakruddin Mian S/o Late Navin Mian 2. Ismail Mian @ Ansari S/o Late Navin Mian 3. Rasool Mian S/o Late Jitu Mian 4. Makbul Mian S/o Rasool Mian 5. Pirali Mian S/o Rasool Mian 6. Dhano Mian S/o Rasool Main 7. Jhupar Mian @ Azad Mian S/o Rakhu Mian All resident of Village Raikunt, P.S. Sonarai Thari, District Deoghar. … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Adv. : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 11.11.2024 By Court:- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. appeared on behalf of the State. Let her name be reflected on behalf of prosecution State. 2. The service report received from District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar reveals that appellant No.3 Rasool Mian died on 15.06.2008. Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 1 3. In view of the above, this appeal stands abated qua appellant No.3 Rasool Mian. 4. Heard Mr. Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Deoghar in Sessions Trial Case No.17 of 2004 whereby and whereunder appellant No.1 was convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining appellants were convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the I.P.C. Appellant No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. whereas all the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 2 I.P.C. 6. The prosecution case is based on written information by Sohrab Mian (informant) stating inter alia that on 05.01.2003 at around 2 P.M., the appellants were obstructing the passage to his house. When the informant asked them to stop, the appellants assaulted him with lathi, stones, and farsha. It was specifically stated that Shakruddin Mian attacked the informant with a farsha on his head. The informant was rescued by other villagers. 7. On the basis of written application of the informant, Sonarai Thari P.S. Case No.01 of 2003 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 337, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.17 of 2004 was registered. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 3 explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documents were also got exhibited by the prosecution. 10. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to 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 further submitted that the learned trial court has specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment that it was first offence of the appellants and the dispute broke up in a sudden manner due to trivial matter of right of way between the parties. There was no pre-meditation for assaulting to anyone. Altogether seven appellants have been involved in this case. The incident is of the year 2003 and maximum Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 4 sentence awarded by learned trial court is three years. Most of the appellants were more than 40 years' old at the time of incident and now have crossed 60. Therefore, appellants may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment and this
Decision
appeal may be disposed of. 12. Learned Spl. P.P. has raised no serious objection on the above point of argument rather defended the impugned judgment on merits. 13. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that at the time of hearing on the point of sentence, learned trial court has categorically mentioned that it is first offence of the appellants and there was dispute of way between the parties and incident took place in a sudden manner but did not extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 on the ground that appellants were armed with lathi and farsha/common agricultural utensil and assaulted the informant party. The reason assigned by the learned trial court appears to be very general and usual which cannot come into category of special reasons for declining the benefit of the Act of 1958. Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 5 14. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment 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 directed to release the appellants giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each for maintaining 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 call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so required 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 sentence already awarded to them. Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 6 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin Cr.A(SJ) No.402 of 2006 Page | 7