1. Faguni Devi, wife of Shri Jhangwa Mandal. 2. Munna Mandal, Son of Jhangwa v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2006 [against the judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2006 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.-1 Godda in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2001 and 73 of 2005] 1. Faguni Devi, wife of Shri Jhangwa Mandal. 2. Munna Mandal, Son of Jhangwa Mandal. 3. Manoj Mandal, Son of Jhangwa Mandal. 4. Ruptak Mandal, Son of Jhangwa Mandal. 5. Nalini Devi, Daughter of Jhangwa Mandal. All are residents of Village- Bari Bhagaiya, P.S. Meharma, District- Godda. Versus ….. Appellants The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Shah, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 05th December, 2024 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Above named the appellants has preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2006 and 31.03.2006 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-1 Godda in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2001 and 73 of 2005, convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 448, 323/149, 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year for the offence under Sections 148, 448 and 323 Page of 1 7 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. Each of them has been further sentence to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 326/149 of the I.P.C. All Sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 25.10.2000 at 11:30 AM. Accused persons came up to the informant’s door and started abusing her. Thereafter, all the accused persons having Lathies entered in the house of the informant and started assaulting her, her sons and daughter and at that time informant’s husband was not present inside the house. Upon raising alarm, her husband came there and rescued his wife. Again when her husband went outside of the house and asked for the reasons of assault, then all the accused persons entered into her house and assaulted them with bamboo sticks (lathi-danda), leg and fist, resulting head injuries to her husband.
Legal Reasoning
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered as Meharma P.S. Case No. 152 of 2000 against the above named accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 341, 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused Page of 2 7 persons for the offences under Sections 147/448/323/307/504 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed for the trial thereafter, the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 148/448/504//307 of the I.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Yashodi Mandal (husband of the informant). P.W.-2 : Bhuneshwar Mandal (co-villagers). P.W.-3 : Keshav Mandal (tendered witness). P.W.-4 : Lagani Devi (informant). P.W.-5 : Dr. Gopi (who examined the P.W.1) P.W.-6 : Dr. Pravesh Paswan (who examined the P.W.-4) P.W.-7 : Gangu Mandal (hostile witness). P.W.-8 : Siyaram Prasad Gupta (Investigating Officer). Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Medical Report. Exhibit-2to2/1 : Two Injury reports. Page of 3 7 Exhibit-3 : Fardbayan. Exhibit-4 : Formal FIR. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that apart from the other offences, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the major offence under Section 326/149 of the I.P.C. The injured witnesses of this case have failed to consistently state the use of any specific weapon by any of the appellant. None of the injuries to any of the injured persons have been found to be caused by sharp cut weapon rather P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who have examined the injured persons (P.W.-1 and P.W.-4) have opined one of the injury to be grievous in nature and other are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, conviction under Section 326 is fit to be reduced for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that it was appellants’ first offence as they have never been convicted earlier for any other offence. This fact was also not considered by the learned trial court and plea for extending the benefit of Provision of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied without recording any special reasons. One of the appellant is women aged about 90 years, (Faguni Devi) and at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, she was 70 years old and other appellants are sons and daughter of appellant no. 1 (Faguni Devi). The Page of 4 7 occurrence is of the year 2000 and more than two decades have been lapsed. The appellants have also undergone imprisonment during the trial for several months. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding of substantive sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial court. 8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the benefit of provisions of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned, he has not raised any serious objection. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that FIR was lodged against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 448, 341, 323 and 504 of the I.P.C., but charge sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 148, 448, 504 and 307 of the I.P.C. 11. The learned trial court has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and held guilty for the offence under Section 148, 448, 323, 326/149 of the I.P.C. From perusal of evidence of injured witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Yashodi Mandal and P.W.-4 Lagani Devi and their Page of 5 7 injury report proved by the P.W.-5, Dr. Gopi and P.W.-6 Dr. Pravesh Paswan, it appears that although, there was a cut injury, but the doctor has specifically opined to be caused by hard and blunt substance. It also appears that none of the witnesses have been able to proof as to what sharp cut weapon was used in assaulting the injured persons, rather the general and omnibus statements in this respect have been given. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellants offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is converted to Section 325 of the I.P.C. and conviction under Section 148, 448, 323/149 are affirmed. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, it is submitted that it was the first offence of the appellants and also appears from perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons for extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. 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 Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded 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 Page of 6 7 learned trial court is 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 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. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is party allowed with the modification in sentence. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Dated: 04th December, 2024. Simran/-NAFR Page of 7 7