Jharkhand High Court
Debi Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 234 of 2003
1. Debi Kisku, S/o Charan Kisku, (Deleted vide order dated
10.12.2021)
2. Jaipal Kisku, S/o Debi Kisku (Deleted vide order dated
10.12.2021)
3. Abilal Hansda, S/o late Chunu Hansda (Deleted vide order
dated 10.12.2021)
4. Sonalal Hansda, S/o late Baban Hansda
5. Ranjit Hansda, S/o late Jitu Hansda
6. Pado Murmu, S/o late Raman Murmu
7. Babujan Murmu, S/o Rabginath Murmu (Deleted vide
order dated 10.12.2021)
8. Nepal Murmu, S/o Rabinath Murmu
All residents of village Chandradhipa, P.S. Mihijam, Sub-
Division - Jamtara, District - Dumka ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Satmoni Kisku, daughter of Sri Jai Kisku resident of village
Chandradhipa, P.S. - Mihijam, District - Dumka.
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the Opp. Party State: Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
13/10.12.2021 The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Amrita Sinha, is present.
2. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Tarun Kumar, is also
present.
3. The present criminal revision application has been filed
for setting aside the judgment dated 08.01.2003 passed by
learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara wherein the
learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred
against the judgment dated 01.06.1995 passed in PCR
No.387/92, TR No. M 412 /95 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class, Jamtara but modified the sentence.
The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioners for
offence under Sections 379/147 of IPC and sentenced the
petitioners to undergo R.I. for 1 month under Section 147 of
I.P.C and for four months R.I. under Section 379 of I.P.C.
However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given the
benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and instead of sentence,
convicts were directed to be released on execution of a bond to
maintain good behavior for six months, while dismissing the
appeal vide judgement dated 08.01.2003.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that
all the petitioners except petitioner nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 have
expired. He also submits that as per the Judgment passed by
the learned appellate court, the benefit under Section 360 of
Code of Criminal Procedure was given to the accused persons
instead of substantive sentence and they have been directed to
be released by the lower court on execution of a bond to
maintain good behavior for six months.
5. Considering the fact that all the petitioners except
petitioner nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 have expired, the present
proceedings so far as it relates to petitioner no.1, 2, 3 and 7
stands abated.
6. Office is directed to delete the name of petitioner no.1, 2, 3
and 7 from the cause title.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae while advancing her
argument has submitted that the impugned judgements are
perverse so far as the conviction of the petitioners for offence
under Sections 379 and 147 of Indian Penal Code is concerned.
She submits that the evidences have not been properly
considered by the learned courts below.
8. This Court finds that as per the prosecution case, plot
no.3031 of Mauja Chandardhipa was recorded as Pradhani
land. It was the specific case of the complainant that the father
of the complainant was appointed as Pradhan by S.D.O,
Jamtara vide order dated 25.09.1992 and the complainant
inherited the properties including the Pradhani Jote bearing
plot no.3031. At the time of appointment of Pradhan, the
accused Debi Kisku along with others filed objection against the
prayer for appointment which was rejected by S.D.O. The
complainant cultivated and grew the paddy crop on the said
land. The accused persons along with other came on the
Pradhani Jote bearing no.3031 and started looting away the
standing crop. The complainant and the other protested, but the
accused refused, and looted 40 maunds of paddy worth
Rs.3,500./-.
9. The complainant filed a complaint in the court of A.C.J.M,
Jamtara, who transferred the complaint petition to the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate for disposal. After the enquiry, the
learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused to face the
trial. At the stage of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined
from the side of the complainant and a number of documentary
evidences were also exhibited in support of their possession
over the property and also to support that they had cultivated
the land. The defence was in complete denial of the incident.
Further case of the defence was that co-villagers had filed an
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka against the
appointment of Pradhaniship of the informant and the matter
was pending. The defence had filed order sheet of Appeal
No.95/1992 which was exhibited, the parcha of another plot
no.3033 was marked as Ext.B, parcha of p.o. field was marked
as Ext.C and the ground of appeal was marked as Ext.D with
objection.
10. The learned trial court considered the evidences on
record and recorded its finding that the complainant was in
possession of the land and had grown the paddy crop in the
Pradhani jote and after considering the materials on record,
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 147 and 379 of
Indian Penal Code, but the learned trial court refused to extend
the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and
the accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month under Section 147 IPC and for 4
months under Section 379 of IPC and their sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
11. So far as the appellate court is concerned, the appellate
court also considered the materials on record and arrived at
concurrent findings and refused to interfere with the judgment
of conviction. However, the appellate court granted the benefit
of Section 360 of Cr.P.C to the accused persons and instead of
substantive sentence, the convicts were directed to be released
on execution of bond to maintain good behavior for six months.
12. This Court finds that the learned courts below have
recorded concurrent findings while convicting the petitioners
for offence under Sections 147 and 379 of Indian Penal Code.
The learned appellate court has also discussed the evidences on
record and delivered a well-reasoned judgement and modified
the sentence of the convicts. There being no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the impugned judgment in revisional
jurisdiction.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
14. The learned trial court is directed to issue notice to the
petitioners for compliance of the order passed by the learned
appellate court, if not already complied. The petitioners are
directed to comply the order of the learned appellate court
within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order through the learned court below, if
not already complied. In case, the petitioners do not maintain
good behaviour, as directed by the learned appellate court, the
petitioners would serve the sentence imposed by the learned
trial court.
15. This Court observes that vide order dated 07.02.2020, Ms.
Amrita Sinha, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in
this case by this Court. This Court records its appreciation for
the valuable assistance accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae
in final disposal of this case. The Secretary, Jharkhand High
Court Legal Services Committee is directed to ensure that the
legal remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae is duly paid to
her within a period of 4 weeks upon submission of bills by her.
16. The office is directed to provide a copy of this order to
Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned Amicus Curiae and also to be
Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee.
17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
18. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through e-mail/FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
