Jharkhand High Court
Mamta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
Mamta Devi, aged about 37 years, wife of Shri Bajrang Mahto, resident of
Village- Gerwa Tand, Gola, P.O. & P.S. Gola, District- Ramgarh
... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
10/14.10.2024 I.A. No. 9682 of 2024
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. I.A. No. 9682 of 2024 has been filed for grant of suspension/stay of the judgment of conviction, during pendency of the present criminal appeal.
3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023. He further submits that this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.As. Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. Case No.348 of 2021, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 147, 323, 341, 342, 427, 435, 353, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and she has been sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, S.I. of 15 days for the offence under Section 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of six months for the offence
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023 under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 353/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 427/149 of the Indian Penal code and R.I. of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 435/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo S.I. of three months and direction was there that all the sentences shall run concurrently. He further submits that the FIR was registered on 30.08.2016 against unknown persons in respect of the alleged occurrence which has taken place on 29.08.2016 at 05:00 p.m. He submits that in the said occurrence, there is no specific role of the appellant. He then submits that none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to support the prosecution case showing the involvement of the appellant and only bald allegation is made of instigation by the appellant to the mob of 400-500 persons. He submits that none of the witnesses have pointed out any specific role in that occurrence by the appellant. By way of drawing attention of the Court to para 26 of the judgment of conviction, he submits that the impugned judgment is inconsistent with the materials available on record. He submits that the appellant was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Ramgarh Cantonment, but due to her conviction, she could not fight the election. He submits that there is no likelihood of taking up of this appeal for hearing in recent time and in view of that, the conviction may kindly be suspended.
4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegation of instigation is there against
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023 the appellant to the mob of 400-500 persons and in view of that, the prayer made in the said I.A. may kindly be rejected.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. The informant- Kaleshwar Ram Munda was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence was taken place on 29.08.2016 and he was posted as driver at Circle Office, Gola and he exhibited his signature over written report as Ext.1, but he did not identify any of the accused and refused to identify the accused, as such, he has been declared hostile on the point of identification. P.W.3 Ramdhar Tiway has taken name of other persons and identified also and they have been acquitted, however, the present appellant and one Rajiv Jaiswal have been convicted and 11 accused persons have been acquitted.
6. The ramification of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected her to represent their constituency.
7. This Court considered the above aspects and particularly that 11 accused persons have been acquitted and only two accused persons have been convicted and others have also been identified by the witnesses, hence the judgment of conviction needs to be stayed and further the appellant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023, therefore, there shall be stay of the judgment of conviction dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023 Judge-IV cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.As. Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. Case No.348 of 2021, arising out of Gola P.S. Case No.65/2016, corresponding to G.R. No.997/2016, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal.
8. In view of the above, I.A. No.9682 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023