1. Sanatan Murmu Son of Late Amin Murmu 2. Sibdhan Murmu Son of Loben v. The State of Jharkhand For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 1. Sanatan Murmu Son of Late Amin Murmu 2. Sibdhan Murmu Son of Loben Murmu 3. Anthony Murmu Son of Late Amin Murmu 4. Loben Murmu Son of Late Amin Murmu 5. Matla Murmu Son of Guray Murmu 6. Kalindo Murmu Son of Loben Murmu All residence of Village Amua, Police Station Mahesh Pur, District Pakur. … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand For the Appellant For the State … Respondent ------ : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Neetu Singh, Adv. Mrs. Rita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Atulaya Shresth, Adv. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 21.11.2024 By Court:- Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 1 Sessions Case No.48 of 2001 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to appellants Nos.2, 3 and 5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to appellants Nos.1, 4 and 6 to under R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324/149 of the I.P.C. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.04.2001 at about 10:30 AM, the present appellants armed with lathi and danda started cutting bamboo from the land belonging to informant. Upon protest, appellant Anthony Murmu gave a blow by kaida (shar cutting weapon) aiming towards neck of the informant which he warded off and sustained injury on his right shoulder. Other family members of the informant were also assaulted by co-accused persons namely Matla Murmu, Kalindo Murmu, Sanatan Murmu, Sibdhan Murmu and Loben Murmu. Rest of the appellants also assaulted to sisters and daughter of the informant. On the basis of above fardbeyan, the case was instituted as Maheshpur P.S. Case No.23 of 2001 for the offences under Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 2 Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. 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 Case No.48 of 2001 was registered. Charges were framed under Sections 148, 149 and 307 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. 5. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced: Exhibit 1 to 1/2 : Three injury reports Exhibit 2 : Signature of P.W.-6 on the Fardbeyan recorded in hospital. Exhibit 3 : Fardbeyan 6. 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. Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards 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 submitted that learned trial court has failed to record any special reasons as required under law for declining the said benefit. It is further argued that admittedly, there was case and counter case between the parties and the occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties laying their rival claims over the land. There was exchange of assault from both sides. Injuries are also superficial and simple in nature. Hence, appellants deserve benefits 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. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection against the arguments of the appellants rather he has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. 9. It appears that injured witnesses have proved the Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 4 prosecution story and the specific overt act of the appellants in the alleged occurrence. Injury reports of injured persons Ex.1, 1/1 and 1/2 has also been proved by Dr. Vijay Shankar Prasad who corroborates the factum of injury sustained by informant, his daughter and sisters in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, so far merits of the case are concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove the commission of offences under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. against the appellants. It is also a fact that it was first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted for any offence and it is pleaded that since the occurrence is of the year 2001 and appellants in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and have 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 appellants. 10. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of injury sustained by the informant and the offence committed by the appellant, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 5 Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter, 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 also directed to release the appellants 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 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 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 substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the learned trial court. 11. In view of above discussions and observations, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as stated above. Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 6 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
Decision
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin Cr.A(SJ) No.1210 of 2006 Page | 7