1. Basir Mallik Son f Late Mansur Mallik. 2. Sadrul Mallik Son of Late v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.807 of 2006 ------ 1. Basir Mallik Son f Late Mansur Mallik. 2. Sadrul Mallik Son of Late Mansur Mallik. 3. Jasim Mallik Son of Sadrul Mallik. 4. Nasim Mallik Son of Sadrul Mallik. All residents of Village- Andudih, P.S. Giridih (M) District- Giridih. .... …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondents ------ For the Appellants For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Bhushan Sinha, Advocate : Mr. B.N.Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA P R E S E N T JUDGMENT Dated- 14.11.2024 By Court:- Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I, Giridih) in Sessions Case No. 258 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty for the offences under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and no sentence Page 1 of 6 awarded under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Factual Matrix 3. The prosecution case is based upon the information given by the informant Nureja Begum (P.W.3) has given a written information on 05.12.2003 to the Officer-In-Charge of Giridih (M) P.S. mentioning there is that about 2 to 3 days prior to the occurrence, the co-villager of the informant namely Sadrul was demanding some rupees as debt which was not given for which he gave threatening to the informant. On 05.12.2003, at about 06:00, when the informant was going to tie her bullock, then all the appellants along with other co-accused who were acquitted from the charges after trial came there and started assaulting the informant by fists, slaps and rod. Meanwhile, the husband of the informant came there to defend the informant, but he was also assaulted by them. The accused persons also snatched golden bali weighing 5 Ana bhar, bala of hand and payal and other house stolen other household articles. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. was registered against six accused persons for the offences under Section 341, 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354, 379/34, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34, 307/34, 354/34 of the I.P.C. have been framed against all the accused persons as well as Page 2 of 6 charges for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. was also framed against accused Sadrul Mallik and all the charges have been read over and explained to the accused persons to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused persons, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit 1 : First Information Report Exhibit 2 : Injury Report Exhibit 2/5 : Five Injury reports Exhibit X & XII : X-Ray Reports (Two). 8. The case of defence is denial from the charge and further defence is that appellants are innocent who have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, held the appellants guilty for the offences under Section 147, 148 and under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2006; this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. Page 3 of 6 11. Learned counsel for the appellants without toucing the merits of the case has confined themselves to the grant of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. It is further submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place due to demand of Rs.2,000/- as debt by the appellants from the informant party which culminated into scuffle and exchange of assault. It is further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Section 341, 323, 325, 354, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused persons, but the charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Section 341, 323, 354, and 379 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The learned trial court has held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence was awarded to undergo three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has raised no serious objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants rather defended the impugned judgment on merits. 14. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both sides and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. Page 4 of 6 15. It appears that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner and there is case and counter case. The injuries sustained by the informant are not on the vital part of the body, resulting dangerous to life. 16. It further transpires that there was no criminal antecedent of the appellants and they have never been convicted for any offence, but the learned trial court without recording any specific reasons swayed upon the nature of offence committed with a woman and her husband has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment to all the accused persons. The appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires interference by this Court. 17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences for which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, I am of the considered view that the trial court has failed to record any special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be entitled. 18. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the appellants are directed to be released under Section 4 of the Page 5 of 6 Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing the bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court, with condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace for a period of one year from the date of furnishing bond. 19. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this order and furnish the bond as per direction of this Court. 20. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the District Probation Officer periodically and in case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court At Ranchi Dated: 14.11.2024 Amar/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 6 of 6