Jharkhand High Court
Ram Sewak Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.288 of 2012
1. Ram Sewak Mahto, Son of Budhu Mahto
2. Angad Mahto, Son of Budhu Mahto
Both resident of Katam Kuli PO & PS - Pithoria, District -
Ranchi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajpati Devi, W/o Rajendra Mahto, R/o Katam Kali, PO PS
Pithoria District Ranchi
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
09/15.07.2021 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.
4. The present criminal revision application has been filed
against the judgment dated 27.01.2012 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.133 of 2008 by learned District and Sessions Judge
III, Ranchi, by which appeal preferred on behalf of the
petitioners against the order of conviction and sentence dated
21.08.2008 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.15 of
1997 T.R. No.471 of 2008 has been dismissed. The petitioners
have been convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379
of Indian Penal Code passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ranchi.
The petitioners were sentenced for one-year simple
imprisonment under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 6
months simple imprisonment under Section 323 of Indian Penal
Code and 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 341 of
Indian Penal Code.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners and others were convicted for offence under
Sections 323/341/379 of Indian Penal Code along with other co-
accused, but others were given benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 and were released on admonition. So far as
the present petitioners are concerned, similar relief was not
granted on account of the fact that there was previous
conviction of the present petitioners. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioners and the complainant were on litigating
terms and there have been criminal cases against each other and
therefore the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the
case. He submits that the present case arises out of a complaint
case and accordingly there has been no investigation by the
police and the witnesses are interested witnesses. He also
submits that there is no injury report on record and the
complainant had stated that on the date of occurrence, she was
assaulted and suffered bleeding injury. Learned counsel also
submits that considering the fact that the parties were already
in litigating terms, the likelihood of false implication of the
petitioners cannot be ruled out. He also submits that the
maximum punishment which has been given in the instant case
is for offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code for a
period of one year and the only allegation is that the petitioners
had snatched one silver chain from the neck of the complainant
worth Rs. 1200/-.
6. The learned counsel submits that without prejudice to the
aforesaid submissions, the fact remains that the incident is of
the year 1997 and at the time of conviction on 21.08.2008, the
present petitioners were of the age of 48 years and 45 years of
age and accordingly, their present age is 61 years and 58 years
respectively. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have
faced the rigors of criminal case for a long time right from the
year 1997 and accordingly, some sympathetic view may be
taken and the sentence be modified. He also submits that the
petitioners are also ready to pay some fine amount and no
useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to jail
for an incident which had taken place as back as in the year
1997.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the
manner in which the present occurrence had taken place
whereby the petitioners assaulted not only the complainant, but
also her two daughters and also snatched one silver chain from
the neck of the complainant, the impugned judgements of
conviction and sentence of the petitioners do not call for any
interference or any lenient view of this Court in the matter of
sentence.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners
were already previously convicted for the offence under Section
323 of Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.117 of 1992
wherein they were released on admonition under the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, but in spite of that, they did not mend
their ways and committed another offence against the
informant party. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
learned courts below have given concurrent findings after
scrutinizing the materials on record and all the witnesses
including the three victims have fully supported the
prosecution case and they were fully cross-examined from the
side of the defence. She has submitted that the learned court
below has already taken some sympathetic view by giving
punishment of only one year for offence under Section 379 of
Indian Penal Code and only 6 months for offence under Section
323 of Indian Penal Code.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party State
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party State has submitted that so far as conviction is concerned,
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements.
He has also submitted that in case, this Court is inclined to
modify the sentence of the petitioners, some fine amount may
be also imposed.
Rejoinder of the petitioners
10. At this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that petitioners have already
remained in custody during the pendency of the present case,
in as much as, as the petitioner no.2 had surrendered before the
learned court below on 28.04.2012 and the petitioner no.1 had
surrendered on 01.05.2012 and were directed to be released on
bail vide order dated 11.05.2012 and thereafter some time must
have been taken for the purposes of furnishing the bail bonds.
He submits that this aspect of the matter be also taken into
consideration.
Findings of this Court
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that as per the prosecution case on 08.01.1997, the
complainant along with her two daughters was at her house
and she saw the present petitioners along with other accused
persons named in the complaint petition were constructing the
room on the disputed land which was in her possession and
was owned by her in the family partition. She rushed to the
police station for necessary information as her husband was in
duty and when she returned home, she saw that all the accused
persons had constructed brick wall and when she objected, all
accused persons started beating her and her two daughters by
fist and lathi on her chest as a result of which bleeding started
from her mouth. It was also alleged that all the accused persons
were chasing her younger daughters and when she raised
alarm, many villagers including the witnesses rushed to the
place of occurrence. It was also the case of the complainant that
while she was assaulted by the accused persons in the
meantime, the present petitioners snatched her silver chain
worth Rs.1200/- and threatened her to face dire consequences.
When the villagers reached there, all the accused persons fled
away. It was also stated that in the complaint petition that the
occurrence was reported to the police, but police did not give
any response and accordingly, the complaint case was filed.
It was also mentioned in the complaint petition that
earlier in the year 1992, a case bearing Complaint Case No.117
of 1992 was instituted under Sections 323/325/341 of Indian
Penal Code against the present petitioners and in that case, both
of them were convicted and were released on admonition.
12. After enquiry, summons was issued to the accused
persons and charges were framed against 11 accused under
Sections 323/341/447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code in which all
the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Altogether 5 witnesses were examined.
13. C.W.1 was the complainant herself. She has fully
supported the prosecution case that the accused persons had
assaulted her as well as her daughters and snatched one silver
chain from her neck. She has also stated that the complainant
went to the police station, but the police did not respond. She
has also stated that the accused persons were trying to make
construction over her land and stated that the present
petitioners assaulted them with leg and fist and lathi on her
waist, chest and hand and dragged her by pulling her hair as a
result of which, she fell down and blood started oozing from
her mouth. She has also supported the allegation against the
petitioners that they snatched one silver chain from her neck
which was worth Rs.1200/-. She has also stated that previously
she had instituted a case against the present petitioners in
which they were convicted.
14. C.W. 3 was the daughter of the complainant, who was
also an injured witness. She has also supported the prosecution
case by stating that all the accused persons assaulted her and
also assaulted her sister and when her mother tried to save
them, she was also assaulted by them and her hair was pulled
out. She has made specific allegations against the present
petitioners having assaulted the complainant with leg and fist
on her waist and her face as a result of which blood was oozing
out from her mouth and nose and she fell down on earth. She
has also supported the allegation against the petitioners that
they snatched one silver chain from the neck of the complainant
which was worth Rs.1200/-. C.W. 5 is the other daughter of the
complainant, who is also a victim of the case. She has also fully
supported the prosecution case.
15. C.W 4 was the husband of the complainant, who has also
supported the prosecution case though he was not present at
the time of occurrence. He has also stated that when he
returned, the entire incident was narrated to him and the
complainant had told him that the present petitioners snatched
her silver chain from her neck. He has stated that the matter
was reported to the police, but the police did not take any
action.
16. C.W. 2 has fully supported the prosecution case to the
extent that there was occurrence of mar-pit in the house of the
complainant, but he had not seen the accused persons
assaulting them because he did not go inside the room, but he
had seen the petitioners coming out from the house of the
complainant. During cross - examination, he has stated that he
went to the place of occurrence hearing the alarm.
17. This Court finds that all the prosecution witnesses have
fully supported the prosecution case in connection with the
occurrence. There were altogether 3 victims of the occurrence
i.e., the complainant and her two daughters, who were
examined as C.W. 1, C.W.3 and C.W.5. This Court also finds
that all the prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross
examined, but there were no material contradictions in their
evidence except with regard to the date of occurrence as one of
the witnesses had stated that the occurrence was dated
01.08.1997 and rest of the witnesses had stated that the
occurrence was of 08.01.1997. This contradiction regarding the
date of occurrence has been taken care of by the learned court
below by holding that this could be due to slip of pen or
inadvertently. The learned court below after considering the
materials found that the incident was of 08.01.1997. From the
perusal of the records of the case, it appears that the complaint
was filed on 09.01.1997. The learned court below has also
considered the defence witnesses. All the three defence
witnesses have totally denied the occurrence.
Admittedly, there is no injury report on record and as the
case arose out of complaint case, the matter was never
investigated by the police.
18. The learned courts below were conscious of the fact that
all the witnesses were interested witnesses of the same family,
and carefully scrutinized the evidence of the witnesses and held
that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses
which included the injured witnesses also, who were fully cross
examined. The learned court also considered the fact that both
the parties were in litigating terms. The learned court below
also considered the fact that no specific charge was framed in
connection with previous conviction, so no enhanced
punishment was given.
19. This Court finds that learned courts below have convicted
the petitioners by concurrent findings after scrutinizing the
material evidences on record. All the 3 prosecution witnesses,
who were also the victims of crime, have supported the case not
only in connection with assault, but also the fact that the
petitioners had snatched one silver chain from neck of the
complainant when she fell down after assault.
20. This Court finds that the learned trial court convicted the
accused for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of Indian
Penal Code and released the other convicts, except the present
petitioners, under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on
admonition. So far as present petitioners are concerned, the
same benefit were not extended to them due to the reason that
there was previous conviction of the present petitioners under
Section 323 Indian Penal Code, which was also a case filed by
the complainant party against the present petitioners. This
Court does not find any illegality in the aforesaid approach of
the learned court below.
21. The petitioners have been sentenced for only 6 months
under Section 323 of Indian Penal code out of maximum
punishment of 3 years and for one year for offence under
Section 379 of Indian Penal Code out of maximum punishment
of 3 years for snatching a chain worth Rs.1,200/- from the neck
of the complainant.
22. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that the previous conviction of the petitioners
in Complaint Case No.117 of 1992 under Section 323 of Indian
Penal Code whereby the petitioners were released on
admonition is an important consideration in exercise of power
in revisional jurisdiction while considering modification of
sentence. It is also not in dispute that the previous conviction of
the petitioners was also arising out of dispute between the
complainant party and the petitioners of the present case. It is
further not in dispute that both the petitioners are in litigating
terms and admittedly, no injury report is on record. It has also
been established that the petitioners along with others had
assaulted three ladies i.e., the complainant and her two
daughters in a room.
23. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court
is of the considered view that no interference is called for so far
as the sentence for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal
Code is concerned. The sentence of simple imprisonment of 15
days under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code also does not call
for any interference.
24. So far as offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code
is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the act of
the offence is snatching away a silver chain worth Rs.1200/-
from the neck of the complainant. Considering the fact that the
petitioners have faced the rigors of criminal case for a long time
since 08.01.1997 and the present age of the petitioner nos.1 and
2 is 58 years and 61 years respectively, the sentence under
Section 379 of Indian Penal Code calls for some modification to
meet the ends of justice.
25. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners under Section
379 of Indian Penal Code is hereby modified and reduced to
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each with a fine
of Rs.10,000/- each. All the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
26. So far as the fine amount is concerned, the same is
directed to be deposited before the learned court below within a
period of two months from the date of communication of this
order. The 50% of the fine amount so deposited is directed to be
remitted to the complainant victim of the case upon due
identification and in case of her non-availability, the same may
be remitted to her two daughters in equal share, after due
identification, who are also the victims of the case.
27. In case of non- deposit of the fine amount within the
stipulated time frame, the petitioners would undergo the
sentence awarded by the learned court below.
28. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby
cancelled.
29. In view of the aforesaid findings, the revision petition is
disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence.
30. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
31. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
32. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
