1. Khublal Mondal Son of Late Dhjna Mandal, Resident of Village Nava Chittakath, P.S v. The State of Jharkhand For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 1. Khublal Mondal Son of Late Dhjna Mandal, Resident of Village Nava Chittakath, P.S. Mohanpur, Distt. Deoghar. 2. Nathu Mandal Son of Late Bhuna Mandal, Resident of Village Naya Chittkath, P.S. Mohanpur, Distt. Deoghar. … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand For the Appellant For the State … Respondent ------ : Mr. Pramod Kr. Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Adv. : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 25.11.2024 By Court:- As per order sheet dated 18.04.2022, it is come on record by way of an affidavit that appellant No.1 Khublal Mondal died on 14.11.2006. 2. In view of the above, this appeal stands abated qua appellant No.1 Khublal Mondal.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. Pramod Kr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.2 as well as Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 1 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.197 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and further sentenced to R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 13.03.1996, the informant was returning to his house after taking bath. When he reached in front of the house of Nathu Mandal (sole surviving appellant), he was suddenly surrounded by Nathu Mandal, Khublal Mandal, Tetar Mandal, Baleshwar Mandal, Laltu Mandal, Bhajju Mandal, and Behla Mandal all are residents of Nayachitkath village. Appellant Nathu Mandal assaulted the informant on the head Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 2 with an iron rod causing injuries above his eye. Thereafter, all the accused persons attacked him with lathis. Khublal Mandal (deceased) struck him below the left knee with a bhujali (sharp weapon) and Laltu Mandal brandished a pistol, threatening that anyone who intervened would be killed. As the informant attempted to escape to his house, the accused surrounded him again and continued beating him. He fell to the ground, bleeding from his injuries. Upon hearing his cries for help, his wife, the wife of his younger brother Ladu Mandal and two other individuals, Bagha Mandal and Tahdi Mandal, arrived at the scene. They witnessed the occurrence and intervened to save him. The informant was subsequently taken to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, for medical treatment. The motive behind the attack was a land dispute. The informant's statement was recorded at Sadar Hospital on 13.03.1996 at 9:00 PM by A.S.I. Shatrugna Thakur, who forwarded the fardbeyan to Mohanpur Police Station for registering the case. On the basis of above fardbeyan, the case was instituted as Mohanpur P.S. Case No.40 of 1996 for the offences under Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 3 Sections 147, 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case No.197 of 1996 was registered. Charges were framed under Sections 147 and 307/149 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution. 8. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned amicus for the sole surviving appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has drawn the attention of the court towards the point of non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1958’) to the surviving appellant to which he deserves. It is submitted that appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Section 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and maximum sentence has been awarded for 3 years R.I. The main assailant was appellant No.1, Khublal Mandal (deceased) who is alleged to have caused injuries to the informant party by bhujali and there was allegation of causing injury by lathi blow by the surviving appellant Nathu Mandal. Admittedly, it was first offence of the appellant and he has never been previously convicted for any offence and after conviction in this case also appellant has not indulged in any criminal activities. The learned trial court without recording any special reasons has denied the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the appellant. It is further submitted that at the time of impugned judgment in the year 1996, the appellant was 40 years’ old and now he is near about 70 years’ old and suffering from several diseases, therefore, sending the appellant in jail custody after lapse of three decades, solved no useful purpose. Hence, impugned judgment and order may be Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 5 modified/altered and the appellant may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned trial court and this appeal may be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection against the arguments of the appellant rather he has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. 12. It appears that in the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.-4 viz. Basudeo Mandal is the main injured witness-cum- informant. It further appears that P.W.-4 viz. Basudeo Mandal is the informant-cum-injured witness in this case who has categorically deposed that while he was returning to his home, he was intercepted by the appellants along with accused persons and Khublal (deceased) assaulted with Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 6 Bhujali on his right foot and Nathu Mandal assaulted with rod on his foot and other accused persons beaten him with lathis and this witness sustained injuries on his foot and eye. P.W.-6 Dr. Nirmala Singh has examined the injured Basudeo Mandal and found following injuries: (i) One swelling over left elbow joint and upper fora. (ii) One lacerated wound with swelling size 1”x1/4”x into bone deep. (iii) One lacerated wound over left leg size 1”x1/4”x bone deep. (iv) Swelling on left eyeball with redness of eye. (v) Abrasion on right hand side 1”x1/4”. All the above injuries were opined to be grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 13. There remains no doubt that the offence under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are made out but from the perusal of impugned judgment and order of sentence, it appears that the learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to which the appellant deserve Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 7 and it is pleaded that since the occurrence is of the year 1996 and appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities and the learned trial court without recording any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the appellant. 14. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained by the informant and the offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter, appellant is 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 appellant giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court with Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 8 condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. The learned trial court may also call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and release the appellant on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant 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. 15. With the above observations, 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.
Decision
17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin Cr.A(SJ) No.902 of 2006 Page | 9