Ramdeo Mirdha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 337 Jhar

                                   1

                CRIMINAL APPEAL(SJ) NO. 873 OF 2003

          Against the judgment of conviction dated 11.06.2003 and the
          order of sentence dated 13.06.2003 passed in S.T. No. 21 of
          2002 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
          No.- IVth, Deoghar

          1. Ramdeo Mirdha, son of late Jagadish Mirdha
          2. Bhalu Mirdha, son of Jago Mirdha
          3. Subhash Mirdha, son of late Jagadish Mirdha
          4. Kali Mirdha, son of Sadhu Mirdha
          5.Nundeo Mirdha, son of late Govind Mirdha
          6. Ram Lal Mirdha, son of Ganesh Mirdha
          7. Shyamsunder Mirdha, son of Bhalu Mirdha.
           All residents of Village: Lusiyo, P.S.: Palajori, Sub-Division:
          Madhupur, District- Deoghar
                                                      .......Appellants
                             Vs.
          The State of Jharkhand                      ........Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. Umesh Chandra Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, APP

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

C.A.V. ON 06.09.2019 DELIVERED ON 22/01/2021

Ratnaker Bhengra,J: As per the report dated 31.10.2018 of the Officer-

in-Charge, Palajori Police Station, appellant no. 1 Ramdeo Mirdha has died. Hence, the appeal of appellant no. 1 Ramdeo Mirdha stands abated.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.06.2003 and the order of sentence dated 13.06.2003 passed in S.T. No. 21 of 2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.- IVth, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the learned court below convicted the appellant nos. 1,3 and 6 under sections 148, 324/ 149 and 323/ 149 of IPC and sentenced them under section 148 IPC to undergo RI for one year, for the offence under section 324/149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years and for offence under section 323/149 IPC imprisonment for 3 months. The learned court below convicted the appellant nos. 2,4,5 & 7 under sections 147, 324/149 and 323/ 149 and sentenced them under section 147 IPC to undergo imprisonment 6 months under section 324/149 IPC to undergo RI for 2 years and

under section 323/149 IPC to undergo imprisonment 3 months. The learned court below further ordered to run the aforesaid sentence concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report dated 16.06.2001 of the informant P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit is that on 16.06.2001 at around 10.00 a.m. in the morning his son Panchanand Pandit and his brother Radhe Pandit both had gone with ox to plough the field and informant had also accompanied them to their chokidari jagir land. Informant's son and his brother began to plough and informant after stopping the flow of the water from the field had sat down on the ridge of the field. Informant further stated that only half an hour had passed ploughing the field, then his co-villagers (1)Ramdeo Mirdha, (2) Subhash Mirdra, (3) Bhalu Mirdha, (4) Shyam Sunder Mirdha, (5) Ram Lal Mirdha, (6) Nundeo Mirdha and (7) Kali Mirdha armed with lathi, danda, arrow and barcha came to the field. They started abusing and assaulting them with bricks, stones, lathi, barcha and arrow with an intention to kill. Subhash Mirdha assaulted Panchanand with arrow which hit on the back of his head due to which he was injured and fell down. On seeing him fallen down, the informant ran towards him and tried to take out the arrow from his head then an arrow shot by Ramlal Mirdha hit him on his right elbow due to which he was injured. On this his brother Radhe Pandit raised alarm shouting "bacho" "bacho" on which his wife, who was bathing nearby came there on which Ramdeo Mirdha threw stone as a result she sustained injury on her rib cage and she fell down. Informant further stated that other accused persons threw bricks and stones and assaulted with lathi. Shyam Sundar Mirdha inflicted lathi blow on the informant as a result he sustained injury on his left elbow and blood oozed out.

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant Palajori P.S. case no. 45 of 2001 dated 16.06.2001 was registered against the accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 337, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was

committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under sections 148 and 307/ 149 of IPC and trial was held and at the conclusion of trial accused persons or appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 7 prosecution witnesses out of whom P.W.7 Ganesh Pandit is the informant of the case; P.W.1 is Mohan Prasad Rai; P.W.2 is Ritlal Rai; P.W.3 is Rajendra Prasad Rai; P.W.4 Ahilya Devi, who is the wife of the informant and P.W.6 is Panchanand Pandit, who is the son of the informant. Prosecution also examined two court witnesses out of whom C.W.1 is Doctor Diwakar Kamath and C.W.2 Mani Bhusan Prasad, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Defense also filed documentary evidence in their defense which is purcha of village Belmi(Ext.-A),certified copy of order sheet of Cr.Mis.Case no. 364/2000(Ext.-B) and certified copy of order dated 04-6-2001 of Cr. Misc. Case no.-409/2001(Ext.-C).

6. P.W.1 Madan Prasad Rai, P.W.2 Ritlal Rai and P.W.3 Rajendra Prasad Rai were at the place of occurrence when the incident of assault took place. P.W.-1 has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he was at his village near a pond. Panchanand and Radhe were ploughing their field and Ganesh was sitting on the ridge. In the meantime Ramdeo, Subhash, Lalu, Shyamsundar, Ram Lal, Kalu and Nundeo came on the land of Panchanand, armed with lathi, danda, bow and arrow and spear and started assaulting with stone and arrow as a result Panchanand sustained injury with an arrow above the neck which was shoot by accused Subhash. The arrow shooted by accused Ram Lal had hit on the elbow of Ganesh and on seeing this the wife of Ganesh came there but Ramdeo assaulted her with stone which hit on the back portion of her head. Ramdeo pressed the rib cage of Ganesh wife with lathi portion of spear and the other accused persons pelted stones indiscriminately on Panchanand and others. P.W.2 Ritlal Rai and P.W.3 Rajendra Prasad Rai have reiterated the same as P.W.1 Madan Prasad Rai in their examination-in-chief.

7. P.W.4 Ahilya Devi is the wife of the informant. She has deposed in her evidence that on the day of occurrence she was at the pond of the village and on hearing hulla she went to the place of occurrence. There she saw accused Subhash had shot an arrow on his son Panchanand, on the back side of his head. When her husband Ganesh was removing arrow from the head of her son Panchanand, then Ram Lal shot an arrow which hit on the right arm of her husband. Ram Deo assaulted her with stone on his head as a result blood oozed out. P.W.4 further stated that accused Kali, Nundeo, Bholu, Shyam Sundar assaulted her with bricks, stones and lathi.

8. P.W.5 Radhey Pandit is the brother of the informant. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he was ploughing land. In the meantime accused Subhash, Rang Lal, Ramdeo, Bholu, Shyam Sundar, Kali and Nundeo came there armed with lathi, spear and arrow. Subhash shot an arrow and third arrow hit Panchanand on the back side of his head. Ranglal's arrow hit on the right arm of Ganesh. Ramdeo's stone hit his bhabhi Ahilya and then Ramdeo came running and pressed the rib cage of his bhabhi.

9. P.W.6 Panchanand Pandit is the son of the informant. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 10:00 a.m. he along with his uncle Radhe Pandit were ploughing the chowkidari land and his father Ganesh Pandit was sitting on the ridge. P.W.6 further stated that accused persons Ramdeo, Subhash, Ramlal, Bhaktu, Shyam Sundar, Kali and Nundeo came there. Subhash and Ram Lal were armed with bow and arrow, Ramdeo armed with bhala and the remaining accused persons were armed with lathi and danda. The accused persons started pelting stones on us which hit his mother. Subhash shoot an arrow which hit on the back of his head and penetrated as a result he fell down. P.W.6 further stated that his father Ganesh Pandit came to remove arrow but he couldn't remove it. Ram Lal shot arrow on his father which hit on his right hand. On hulla Mohan Ram, Rajendra, Rit Lal etc. came to the place of occurrence, then accused persons fled away.

10. P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit is the informant of the case. He has

stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he was sitting on the ridge of his jagir field and his brother and son were ploughing the field. In the meantime Ramdeo, Subhash, Ramlal, Bhaktu, Shyam Sundar, Kali, Nundeo, total seven accused persons came there. Subhash and Ramlal were armed with bow and arrow, Ramdeo was armed with barcha and the remaining accused persons were armed with lathi. Accused persons came there with an intention to kill them and firstly abused them and then started pelting stones to them. Informant further stated that firstly Subhash shoot an arrow which hit on the back of the head of Panchanand due to which he fell down. He pressed Panchanand's head and pulled out the arrow. In the meantime Ram Lal shoot an arrow which hit on the elbow of his right hand. When his brother raised hulla, his wife ran there and she was also assaulted by the accused persons with stones on her head. Ramdeo assaulted his wife with barcha. Informant has proved the fardbayan which was marked as Ext.-1.

11. C.W.-1 Dr. Diwakar Kamath had examined all the three injured witnesses.

(i) On examination of P.W.6 Panchanand Pandit doctor found following injury on his person:

(i) Sharp cut 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on back of head inflicted by an arrow having at least two sharp arms on its both side.

Doctor opined the nature of injury to be grievous. Doctor proved the injury report of Panchanand Pandit which was marked as Ext.-2.

(ii) Doctor on examination of the informant P.W.7 Ganesh Pandit found following injuries on his person:

(i) Sharp cut 1/2" x 1/6" x 1/6" on right forearm near elbow joint in outer side caused by pointed instrument like arrow.

(ii) Swelling with severe pain 2" x 1/2" on left elbow by hard and blunt substance like stone.

(iii) Swelling with severe pain 2" x 2" on left leg near linear joint caused by hard and blunt substance like stone.

(iv) Swelling with pain 1" x 1" on right ankle caused by hard and blunt substance like stone.

Doctor proved the injury report of Ganesh Pandit which was marked as Ext.-2/1.

(iii) Doctor on examination of P.W.4 Ahilya Devi, found following injuries on her person:

(i) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/6" x skin deep on the back of head.

(ii) Abrasion 3" x 11/2" on right side of chest.

Doctor opined that both injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi or stone.Doctor has proved the injury report of Ahilya Devi which was marked as Ext.-2/2.

12. C.W.2 is the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the formal FIR which was marked as Ext.-3.

ARGUMENTS OF BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

13. Learned counsel for the appellants in his argument has pointed out from the FIR that seven accused persons, namely, Ramdeo Mirdha, Bhalu Mirdha, Subhash Mirdha, Kali Mirdha, Nundeo Mirdha, Ram Lal Mirdha and Shyam Sunder Mirdha have been named in the FIR and that they had arrived armed with lathi and danda and arrow. In the FIR it is further indicated that Subash Mirdha had shot arrow due to which Panchanand Pandit had sustained injury on his head and Ram Lal Mirdha had also shot an arrow which injured the informant Ganesh Pandit on his right elbow. On alarm made by Radhe Pandit, the wife of the informant came and then Ramdeo Mirdha had hit her with a stone and injured her with rod of barcha due to which she received injuries on her ribs. Counsel for the appellant has then from the deposition or the evidences of the prosecution pointed out the defects or lacuna and submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 7 Ganesh Pandit, the informant of the case,it is revealed that all the accused persons were assaulting with stone, while in the FIR, assault by stone is specifically attributed to Ramdeo. Counsel says that this is inconsistency regarding the manner of assault. Counsel also pointed out that informant has also referred to some litigation which is actually a reference to the dispute that is going on between the parties and therefore, the entire background of the allegations is based on inimical terms. Counsel also says that in paragraph 9 informant has admitted that he had heard that the relevant disputed plot is in the name of Jhalo Mirdha, who is the ancestors of the accused persons or the appellants herein. Counsel, therefore, says

that when the land belongs to the accused or the appellants then the informant have no cause or grievance.

14. Learned counsel has also taken us through the evidence of P.W. 6 Panchanand Pandit and pointed out from his cross examination that P.W.6 cannot read and rather he can only put his thumb impression. Counsel therefore says that even this witness does not know what the allegations are about which he is unable to read and therefore, the entire basis of the case is based on shaky foundations. Counsel says this witness is also prone to exaggeration and has alleged that hundred of stones were thrown. Counsel also points out from the evidence of this witness wherein he says that it is wrong to say that the concerned land is in the name of Jhalo or the ancestors of the accused which is contradictory to the information given by the informant regarding the land where informant has admitted that the land belongs to the accused or the appellants. Counsel for the appellant has argued that just 12 days prior to the incident the informant as choukidar had threatened to lodge a false case against the accused or the appellants. Therefore, sanha to this effect was lodged in the court of SDM bearing Criminal Miscellaneous application no. 409 of 2001 under section 39 of the Cr.P.C dated 04.06.2001. It was mentioned in the sanha that Ganesh Pandit had threatened to implicate them in false case with intent to grab the ancestral land of Jhalo. Counsel, therefore says that only 12 days thereafter the apprehension was true and Ganesh Pandit files FIR on 16.6.2001 as per his threatening. Counsel says that informant was able to easily lodge FIR because he worked as choukidar in the same police station. Counsel for the appellants argued that the court below did not consider the sanha (mentioned in para-10 of the judgment) and submits that in fact the court considered it unnecessary. He submits that Ext.-C is relevant under section 6 and under section 7 of the Evidence Act. In the same line, learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the learned court below also did not consider Ext.-A and Ext.-B. He has submitted that Ext.-A is the khatian pertaining to the place of occurrence which is recorded in the name of Dhundha

Mirdha and Jhalo Mirdha, who also belong to the depressed castes. Learned court below has also not considered Ext.-B which is a document pertaining to a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C., which though was dropped nevertheless has some relevancy in this case. Counsel, therefore argues that based on the evidences of Ext.-A and Ext.-B it is apparent that the land belongs to the accused party or the appellants and is not a land of the informant side.

15. Learned counsel further submits that both parties have nevertheless admitted that the lands are disputed and therefore, the entire occurrence in this case is to be seen in the background of disputed land and enmity. Counsel further submits that P.W.7 has admitted that the place of occurrence land is in the name of Jhalo Mirdha. He has also admitted in his evidence the litigation is going on between both the parties regarding the concerned land, two years prior to the occurrence.

16. Moving on to the evidence of P.W. 2, counsel for the appellant has argued regarding the manner of occurrence and stated that he is unable to say which of the arrows of Subhash or Ramdeo had hit Panchanand and Ganesh. P.W. 2 also stated that no villagers had come at the place of occurrence during the incident, hence the incident is not supported by any independent witnesses. Regarding the evidence of P.W. 3, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that he has admitted that as soon as he had reached the place of occurrence the accused persons had fled away. Counsel, therefore, says that by his own admission, it is clear that P.W. 3 has not actually seen the occurrence taking place. Counsel for the appellants has also argued that P.W. 3 has also said that the accused persons did not go to the field of occurrence or the place of occurrence, hence no close altercation had taken place between the parties. Counsel for the appellant has then pointed out from the cross-examination of P.W. 4 Ahilya Devi that seeing the fisher folks the accused persons or the appellants had run away. Appellants counsel, therefore, has submitted that P.W. 4 has supported P.W. 3 in the sense in that the accused had fled away from the place of occurrence.

17. Learned counsel has then pointed out that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has been made court witness that he had seized no weapons, bricks or lathi or even any blood stained soil and therefore, no evidence of assault is there. The Investigating Officer did not even get the maps or other necessary papers pertaining to the relevant lands.

18. Learned counsel also added that from the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, it is apparent that no independent witnesses have claimed to see the occurrence with their own eyes rather they have said that as soon as they reached the place of occurrence, the accused had fled away. Counsel said that this has been confirmed by P.W.-4 and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as far as occurrence is concerned, is not admissible according to section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. Rest of the witnesses being family members are not trustworthy because they are family members and closely interested in the case and also being on inimical terms as is proved by the sanha which was given earlier to the incident. Counsel for the appellant in summation further argued that seen in the background of land dispute and prior threatening in fact 12 days prior to the incident and the threat being executed by registration of false case, it can be safely said that the entire case is a concoction. It is also to be borne in mind that the informant is a choukidar in the same police station and therefore it is very convenient and easy for him to lodge a fasle fardbeyan or FIR in the same police station. Given the fact that it has come on record that witnesses have said that land belongs to the accused or the opposite side there is no case actually made out rather the land belongs to the accused side or the appellants then they had every right even to defend their lands against any intruding party. Appellants counsel also pleaded for reduced sentence on the basis of custody and already undergone hardships of trial and also age.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE

19. Learned counsel for the State, learned APP has, on the other hand, has argued that this is a case in which as far as occurrence is concerned there are three injured eye witness who are informant

P.W.7, P.W.4 and P.W.6. The doctor was examined as court witness no. 1 and he has proved the injury report of all the three injured viz Ext.-2, Ext.-2/1 and Ext.- 2/2 which indicates that P.W.-4, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 had sustained injuries. Counsel also pointed out that apart from the other injuries, there is also one injury which is in the nature of grievous injury, which is injury no. 1 caused to P.W.-6 Panchanand Pandit and that was inflicted on the occipital bone on the back of the head. Learned counsel has also submitted that the time of occurrence is supported by medical evidence as the age of the injury is also indicted as being within six hours which would indicate that the occurrence had taken place and was reported to the police. Counsel says from the evidences of the injured witnesses and the doctor's report that this is a close and shut case of ocular evidence being fully supported by medical evidence and therefore this is a case in which the conviction needs to be fully sustained and upheld as well as the sentences. Counsel for the State also submits that the Investigating Officer may not have found the weapons of assault which does not mean that the entire case against the appellants collapses for the reason that the injured witnesses were examined by the doctor or C.W.-1.

FINDINGS

20. Having heard counsel for both sides, having gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there are as many as eye-witnesses in this case out of which three are injured witnesses.

21. So, far as individual injury sustained by the injured P.W.-4, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 are concerned, I find that-

(i) P.W.-6 Panchanand Pandit has in his evidence deposed that accused Ramdeo, Subhash, Ramlal, Bhalu, Shyamsunder , Kali and Nundeo arrived on the Place of occurrence. Appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and Appellant no.6 Ram Lal were armed with bow and arrow while Ramdeo was carrying spear and the remaining appellants were carrying stones, lathi and danda. Thereafter, accused persons started pelting stone on them as a result his mother P.W.-4 sustained injury

by stone. He was injured on the back of his head by arrow shot by Appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and arrow had penetrated him.

(ii) The next important witness is the injured informant P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit himself. Informant has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence accused persons Ramdeo, Subhash, Ramlal, Bhalu, Shyam Sundar, Kali, Nundeo, total seven accused persons came to his field. Appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and Appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha were armed with bow and arrow, Ramdeo was armed with barcha and the remaining accused persons were armed with lathi. Accused persons came there with an intention to kill them and firstly abused them and then started pelting stones on them. Informant further stated that firstly Appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha shoot an arrow which hit on the back of the head of P.W.-6 Panchanand due to which he fell down. He pressed Panchanand's head and pulled out the arrow. In the meantime Appellant no.6 Ram Lal shoot an arrow which hit on the elbow of his right hand. When his brother raised hulla, his wife ran there and she was also assaulted by the accused persons with stones on her head.

(iii) The other injured witness is the informant's wife herself or P.W.-4 Ahilya Devi. P.W.-4 has stated in her evidence that Ram Deo assaulted her with stone on his head as a result blood oozed out. P.W.4 further stated that accused Kali, Nundeo, Bhalu, Shyam Sundar assaulted her with bricks, stones and lathi.

22. So, far as medical evidence is concerned, I find from the evidence of doctor or C.W.-1 that doctor had examined the three injured witnesses P.W.-4, P.W.-6 and P.W.-6. Doctor has described the injury on P.W.-6 Panchanand Pandit as sharp cut measuring 2''x 1/2''x1/2'' on back of head of inflicted by arrow having at least two sharp arms on its both side. Doctor opined that the nature of injury sustained by P.W.-6 Panchanand Pandit as being grievous. C.W.-1 or doctor on examination of P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit had found sharp cut 1/2''x1/6''x1/6'' on right forearm near elbow joint in outer side caused by sharp margined and pointed instrument like arrow. Three other injuries sustained by P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit have been indicated as

swellings with severe pain on left elbow, on left leg near linear joint and right ankle caused by hard and blunt substance such as stone. Further, doctor on examination of P.W.-4 Ahilya Devi had found lacerated wound 1/4''x1/6''x skin deep on back of head and abrasions 3''x1/2'' and opined that injuries were simple in nature caused by lathi or stone on right side of her chest. Both the injuries was caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi or stones. Doctor or C.W.-1 has proved the injuries report of P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-4 which were marked as Ext.-2, Ext.-2/1 and Ext.-2/2 respectively.

23. So , the ocular evidence of the injured is corroborated by the medical evidence of Doctor or C.W.-1 by the injuries report of the injured viz Ext.-2, Ext.-2/1 and Ext.-2/2. Not only this P.W.-1, P.W.- 2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 were also present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident of assault and have deposed as to manner of assault on the three injured by the appellants.

24. Hence, from the evidence it is concluded that the accused persons or the appellants herein had come fully prepared armed with bows and arrows, barcha, lathi and stones to inflict injury to informant side. From the evidence, I find that the appellants who are carrying weapons of assaults apart from stones, only appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha had shoot an arrow. The injury sustained by Panchanand Pandit and P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit is attributed only to appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha. Arrow shoot with considerable force and it hits a particular part of a body can be fatal and therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellants under section 324/149 IPC is appropriate though in the facts and circumstance it is only restricted to these two appellants i.e. appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha and further charges under section 148 and 323/149 of IPC are also proved against these two appellants. So, far as charges against appellant nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 are concerned, I find that these appellants were also part of an unlawful assembly and were armed with lathi and stones and they pelted stones causing injuries to the informant P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit

which is reflected in his injury report Ext.-2/1.Apart from arrow injury P.W.-7 Ganesh Pandit had received three other injuries all of which were described as swelling also been attributed to be caused by hard and blunt substances such as stone. Therefore, prosecution has been able to prove the charges under section 147 and 323/149 of IPC against the appellant nos.2, 4, 5 and 7.

25. Accordingly, conviction of appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha as passed by the learned court below dated 11-6-2003 in S.T. No.21 of 2002 under section under section 148, 324/149 and 323/149 of IPC is sustained and upheld. Convictions under section 324/149 of IPC against the appellant nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 are set aside but conviction under section 147 and 323/149 of IPC of the Appellant nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 are sustained and upheld.

26. So, far as sentence is concerned, I find that occurrence occurred in 2001 and more than 18 years have elapsed. From the record it appears at present Appellant no. 4 Kali Mirdha is about 70 years of age and other appellants are also in their fifties and appellants have faced rigor and vigor of trial and considering these mitigating circumstances appellant no.3 Subhash Mirdha and appellant no.6 Ram Lal Mirdha are sentenced to modified sentence of 3 months S.I. under section 148 of IPC, 3 months S.I. under section 324/149 of IPC and 15 days S.I. under section 323/149 of IPC and all the sentences will run concurrently. Appellant no.2 Bhalu Mirdha, Appellant no.4 Kali Mirdha, Appellant no.5 Nundeo Mirdha and Appellant no.7 Shyamsunder Mirdha are sentenced to a modified sentence of 15 days SI under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also 15 days modified sentence under section 323/149 IPC, both sentences to run concurrently. Appellants shall pay a consolidated compensation of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand) to the injured informant P.W.7- Ganesh Pandit and in default if which appellants will undergo 15 days S.I. The compensation amount may be deposited in the learned court below. Bail bond of appellants are cancelled. The learned court below shall take step to carry out the order of this court.

27. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction and in sentence.

( Ratnaker Bhengra,J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 22 /01/2021 Sharda/NAFR