Hari Lal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3131 Jhar

                                                    1



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                       Cr. Revision No.564 of 2012
                                                  --------

Hari Lal Mahto, S/o Sristidhar Mahto R/o village Aamdih, P.O. & P.S. - Putki, Dist Dhanbad ....... Petitioner

-Versus -

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Renuka Devi, W/o Ramgulam Mahto, R/o village Aamdih, P.O & P.S. Putki, Dist. Dhanbad .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the Opp. Party State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate

Through Video Conferencing .......

6/ 26.08.2021 Heard Mr. Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and Mrs. Bandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State.

2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction

and sentence dated 31.01.2005 passed by 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad

in G.R. Case No.3263 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No.319 of 2005, arising

out of Putki P.S. Case No.124 of 2000.

3. The petitioner has been convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months for offence under Sections 354 of IPC and to undergo

simple imprisonment for one month for offfence under Section 341 of the IPC.

4. Petitioner has also challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge,

Dhanbad dated 8.05.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.36 of 2005 confirming the

conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 341/354 of Indian Penal

Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that there are

concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and accordingly he is

confining his arguments on the point of sentence. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of about three

months, out of maximum sentence of six months. So far as the sentence in

connection with offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is concerned,

the same has already been served and so far as the offence under Section 354 of

IPC is concerned, half of the sentence has been served by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the date of occurrence

in the present case is 4.01.2000 and at that point of time, there was no minimum

sentence, as such, prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. Learned

counsel submits that the Judgment of Trial Court was pronounced on 31.01.2005

and on that date, as per the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner was 32

years of age and now the petitioner is about 48 years of age. Learned counsel

submits that if the time is calculated from the date of occurrence, more than 20

years has elapsed and the petitioner has served half sentence for long time and

has been sufficiently punished. He submits that considering this aspect of the

matter, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified. He also submits that if

this Court finds proper, some fine amount / victim compensation may be

imposed. Learned counsel also submits that as per the evidences on record, the

petitioner appears to be a relative of the victim and the occurrence had taken

place, when the victim had gone to the village tank to take bath and as per the

allegation, the petitioner had accosted her and started teasing her and when she

raised alarm, the husband of the informant and others had arrived at that place.

Learned counsel submits that although the allegation was made that the

petitioner had snatched the earring and fled away, but no charge was ever framed

against the petitioner on such allegations. Learned counsel submits that the

records of the case do not indicate any criminal antecedent against the petitioner.

Arguments of the State

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and

has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts

below, which is supported by the evidence on record and accordingly she

submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments,

calling any interference in revision jurisdiction.

7. It is further not in dispute that the alleged offence relates to the period of

year 2000 and at that point of time, there was no minimum sentence, as such,

prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far as modification of

sentence is concerned, it is up to the Court to consider on the facts and

circumstances of the case and pass appropriate order. Learned counsel further

submitted that in case, this Court is modifying the sentence of the petitioner,

some fine amount may be imposed, so that the victim of the case may be duly

compensated and the fine amount be directed to be remitted to the victim

concerned.

Findings of the Court

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the

prosecution case is based on a written report of the victim alleging that on

4.01.2000, at 1.00 PM, she had gone to village tank to take bath, where the

petitioner accosted her and started teasing her. She has raised alarm and upon

raising alarm, her husband as well as one Champa Devi arrived at the spot. On

seeing the witnesses, the petitioner snatched her earring and fled away. After

investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the

offence under Sections 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was

taken under the said sections. The charges were framed under the aforesaid

sections on 10.07.2001. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be

tried.

10. At the stage of trial, the prosecution produced altogether five witnesses.

The informant victim was examined as PW - 5. She has fully supported the

prosecution case and stated that the petitioner came at the spot and caught hold

of her with bad intention and when she raised alarm, PW 1 and PW -2 came at

the spot and upon seeing them, the petitioner snatched her earring and fled away.

She proved her fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext. - 1. She has been duly

cross-examined from the side of defence and she has also stated that the

petitioner was related to her and happens to be her grandson. So far as PWs - 1,

2 & 3 are concerned, they all have fully supported the prosecution case and they

have stated that they reached the place of occurrence and when they reached, the

petitioner fled away from there. These witnesses have also identified the

petitioner. All the witnesses were cross-examined at length. Husband of the

petitioner P.W.-1 was also cross-examined and he also stated that the petitioner

had caught hold of his wife and he was holding various parts of her body.

11. The defence witness was also cross-examined from the side of

prosecution, in which, he had stated that the petitioner is the grandson of the

informant-victim and that there was land dispute between them and stated that

the victim had threatened the petitioner to implicate him in a case, as there was

dispute over payment of chanda.

12. Learned Trial Court scrutinized all the evidences on record and convicted

the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 354 of Indian Penal code

and as the Court was of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the

case beyond all reasonable doubts, the trial court sentenced the petitioner

accordingly.

13. The evidences on record were duly scrutinized by the Appellate Court

also and the Appellate Court recorded its finding at para 14 of the Judgment,

which is quoted as under:

"From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the prosecutrix has fully supported her case and as stated in the written report. She has stated that on 4.11.2000 at about 1 p.m., she gone to village tank, where the appellant caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty and on her hullah the witnesses came to her rescue. Ram Gulam Mahto (PW-1), Champa Devi (PW - 2) and Akli Devi (PW - 3) all have corroborated the date and time of occurrence and they have stated that they have heard hullah of prosecutrix and on hullah they came to the place of

occurrence, which is happens the place near village tank. Ram Gulam Mahato (PW - 1) has stated that he saw the appellant molesting the prosecutrix while Champa Devi (PW - 2) and Akli Devi (PW - 3) saw the appellant fleeing away from there. There is nothing in the cross examination of the witnesses to doubt their veracity. All the witnesses have corroborated the place of occurrence, which happens to the near of village tank."

Learned Appellate Court refused to interfere with the Judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the

appeal.

14. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned

courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record and there is no illegality,

perversity or material irregularity calling for any interference in the Judgment of

conviction passed by the learned Courts below, and the conviction of the

petitioner for the offence under Sections 354 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is

hereby upheld.

15. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that

the incident is of 4.01.2000 and at that point of time, no minimum sentence as

such was prescribed under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and maximum

sentence prescribed was of two years with fine. This Court also finds that more

than 20 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence and the petitioner had

surrendered before the learned Court below during the pendency of the criminal

case on 11.05.2012 and was directed to be released on bail by this Court on

9.08.2012 and it appears from records that the bail bond furnished by the

petitioner was accepted vide order dated 21.08.2012. Thus, the petitioner has

remained in custody in connection with present case for more than three months.

16. This Court finds in view of the facts and circumstances that ends of

justice would be served if the sentence is modified to some extent and fine

amount be imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of the

petitioner is hereby modified and limited to the period already undergone by the

petitioner in judicial custody in connection with the present case with a fine

amount of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned Court

below within a period of three months from the date of communication of this

order to the learned court below.

17. It is made clear that if the fine amount is not deposited within the

stipulated time, the bail bond will be immediately canceled by the learned court

below and the petitioner would serve the sentence imposed by the learned court

below. Learned Court below is directed to remit 50% of the fine amount,

deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order to the victim of the case, i.e.,

PW - 5, after due identification.

18. This criminal revision is accordingly disposed of with the modification as

aforesaid.

19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

20. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.

21. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through email/

FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) R.Kumar