The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 ------ 1. Mangru Mian Son of Late Manirudin Mian. 2. Samsuddin Mian Son of Late Maniruddin Mian 3. Ajeem Mian Son of Late Maniruddin Mian 4. Barkat Mian @ Md. Barkat Son of Late Maniruddin Mian 5. Majloom Mian son of Late Maniruddin Mian 6. Mani Mian son of Kallu Mian 7. Md. Kamruddin @ Gangwa Mian Son of Kallu Mian 8. Duli Mian son of Kallu Mian 9. Heera Mian son of Kallu Mian All are residents of village Tavaghat, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar. .... …. Appellants The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent Versus ------ For the Appellant(s) For the State For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate : Ms. Sweta Singh, A.P.P. : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 06.12.2024 By Court:- Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Ms. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19th May, 2006 and sentence dated 22nd May, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. II, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 324, 325, 380, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and all were directed to undergo Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 1 R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 448, two years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, two years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 325 with a fine of Rs.5000/-, two years R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 380 along with fine of Rs.5000/-, one year R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 427 and one month S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 341. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Jamal Mian recorded on 13.06.1995 at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar stating inter alia that on 04:00 A.M., in the morning when he awoke up on hearing the breaking of his tin door, he saw that his door was open and his agnate (cousin) Mangru Mian armed with tangi, Samsuddin Mian armed with farsi and Mazloom Mian armed with iron rod were along with other accused persons were standing near his door. Upon raising hulla, informant was brutally assaulted by them. He got injury and blood started oozing. Informant further stated that appellants took away the bucket, aluminum pitcher cash of Rs.500/- and also break the “Khapra” (Tiles) of his house and when the brother of the informant Mattru Mian and Jagru Mian reached there, they were also assaulted by the appellants. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 2 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 89/1995 dated 13.06.1995 was registered against all accused persons for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 427, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 10.08.1995 under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 427, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 327, 380, 325 read with 34 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to the appellants which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit 3 : F.I.R. Exhibit 4 : Fardbeyan Exhibit 4/1 : Signature of Jamal Mian on Farbeyan Exhibit 4/2 : Signature of Yusuf Ansari Exhibit 4/3 : Endorsement of Fardbeyan. Exhibit 5 : Injury report of Israil Mian. Exhibit 5/1 : Injury report of Md. Israil Mian. Exhibit 5/2 & 5/3: X-Ray plates. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 3 8. The case of defence is denial from the charges 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, convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 324, 325, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thme as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19th May, 2006 and order of sentence dated 22th May, 2006; this Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the dispute arose in a sudden manner on the question of land dispute. There was exchange of assault and also there is a counter case pending before the same learned trial court bearing Sessions Case no. 219/1996. The appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 324, 325, 380 and 427 of the I.P.C. and the maximum punishment awarded to them is two years R.I. The appellants have taken plea before the concerned trial court that it was their first offence and they have never been convicted in any other offences. Hence, they deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which has been declined by the learned trial court without recording any specific reason. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires interference by this Court. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 4 12. 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 judgment on merits. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 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. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 5 16. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned trial court three months from the date of this order and furnish the bond as per direction of this Court. 17. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the District Probation Officer. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to receive the sentence already awarded to them.
Decision
18. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated:-06.12.2024 Amar/- (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.753 of 2006 Page | 6