Jharkhand High Court
Munna Mahto Son Of Heera Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2012
1. Munna Mahto son of Heera Mahto
2. Pappu Mahto son of Lalji Mahto
3. Nepal Mahto son of Heera Mahto
4. Heera Mahto son of Late Govind Mahto
(deleted vide order dated 13.09.2021)
5. Kistu Mahto son of Babulal Mahto
All residents of Village- Chaparia, P.O.- Pathrol,
P.S.- Karon, District- Deoghar ... ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2012
Manager Mahto son of Heera Mahto
Resident of Village- Chaparia, P.O. & P.S. Karon
District Deoghar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 551 of 2012)
Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No. 185 of 2012)
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. (In 551/2012)
Mr. Jitendra Pandey, AP.P. (In 185/2012)
Through Video Conferencing
8/01.10.2021
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 551
of 2012.
2. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 185 of
2012.
3. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra and Mr. Jitendra Pandey,
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-
State in Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2012 and Cr. Revision No. 185
of 2012 respectively.
4. The learned trial court, vide judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in G.R.
Case No. 127 of 1997 / T.R. No. 474 of 2005, arising out of
Karon P.S. Case No. 16 of 1997 dated 26.03.1997, convicted the
petitioners and Raju Mahto under Sections 149, 323 and 447 of
IPC. The learned trial court further convicted Heera Mahto
under Section 148 and Section 324 of IPC, further convicted the
petitioners-Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto
under Section 325 of IPC and further convicted the petitioners-
Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Raju Mahto, Munna Mahto,
Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto under Sections 147 of IPC.
5. The learned trial court sentenced the convict-Heera Mahto to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence
under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest of the
convicts (Petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 551/2012 and Raju Mahto)
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence
under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial
court further sentenced the petitioners and Raju Mahto to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence
under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous
imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three
months for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal
Code. The learned trial court further sentenced Heera Mahto
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and further
sentenced the petitioners-Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto and
Raju Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code and in case of default in payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for further one month. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. Against the Judgment passed by the learned trial court, the
Petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 551/2012 and Raju Mahto preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2005 in which the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, vide order dated
22.12.2011, confirmed the conviction of Hira Mahto under
Sections 148, 323, 447 of IPC and the conviction of Nepal
Mahto and Raju Mahto under Sections 147, 323, 447 and 325 of
IPC and also confirmed the conviction of Munna Mahto,
Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto under Sections 147, 323 and
447 of IPC. However, the learned appellate court acquitted
Hira Mahto from the charge under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code and set aside the sentence of the appellants therein
under Section 149 of IPC. The learned appellate court
sentenced Hira Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, three
months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and one
month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC. The learned
appellate court sentenced Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 147 of IPC, three months for the offence
under Section 323 of IPC, one month for the offence under
Section 447 of IPC and six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. The learned appellate court sentenced of Munna
Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section
147 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 323 of
IPC and one month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. With the
aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentences, the
learned appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal.
7. Against the judgment of the learned trial court, the petitioner-
Manager Mahto preferred Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2005 in
which the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar,
vide order dated 22.12.2011, confirmed his conviction under
Sections 147, 323, 447 and 325 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 147 of IPC, three months for the offence
under Section 323 of IPC, one month for the offence under
Section 447 of IPC and six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month
and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
However, the learned appellate court set aside the sentence
under Section 149 of IPC. With the aforesaid modification in
the conviction and sentence, the learned appellate court
dismissed the criminal appeal.
8. At the outset, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners confined their arguments on the point of sentences
imposed upon the petitioners by the learned appellate court.
9. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner namely, Nepal
Mahto and Manager Mahto were convicted for the offences
under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code
and were sentenced for three months, three months, six
months and one month respectively. So far as other petitioners
are concerned, they were convicted for the offence under
Sections 147, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and were
sentenced for three months, three months and one month
respectively. Learned counsel also submitted that in order to
consider the point of sentence, it would be relevant to consider
that there was case and counter case between the parties
arising out of the same incident and the informant party was
also convicted, but they were extended the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel submitted that
before the learned trial court, the defence had produced
relevant exhibits i.e. Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B to prove that
there was case and counter case between the parties.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that there was free fight
between both the parties on account of trivial issue regarding
the crop being eaten up by the animal of the other party.
Learned counsel also submitted that from perusal of the
impugned judgments, it appears that no previous conviction
of the petitioners was brought to the notice of the learned
court below.
11. Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the
present criminal revision, the petitioner-Manager Mahto
remained in custody for the period from 12.06.2012, when he
surrendered, to 26.06.2012, when he was directed to be
enlarged on bail and a few days must have been taken by him
for furnishing the bail bond. So far as the other petitioners are
concerned, they had surrendered on 27.08.2012 and they were
directed to be released on bail vide order dated 03.09.2012 and
a few days must have been taken by them in furnishing bail
bond. Learned counsels also submitted that there is no
minimum sentence as such prescribed for the alleged offences
and accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and also the fact that 24 years have
elapsed from the date of incident, the sentence of the
petitioners may be modified. They also submitted that no
useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to jail
after long lapse of time from the date of incident. They
submitted that some fine amount may be imposed which may
be remitted to the victim of the present case by way of victim
compensation.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other
hand, submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded
by the learned courts below by convicting the petitioners with
regard to the offences in which their conviction has been
upheld and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned
appellate court judgment. However, during the course of
argument, it has not been disputed that there was case and
counter case between the parties arising out of the same
incident and the informant parties of the present case have
also been convicted in the counter case and they were granted
the benefit under the Probation of the Offenders Act. So far as
sentence is concerned, learned counsel submitted that it is for
the court to pass order on the point of sentence.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the materials on record, this Court finds that the
prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant
namely, Raghu Mahato alleging that on 25.03.1997 at 8 A.M.,
the accused persons namely, Heera Mahto, armed with
bhujali, Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Munna Mahto, Raju
Mahto, Pappu Mahto, Kistu Mahto and four-five other co-
villagers armed with Lathi came at the door of the Informant's
house and started asking the informant as to why his animals
ate their crops. On which the Informant assured the accused
persons that such occurrence will not occur in future. In spite
of that, the accused Heera Mahto abused the Informant and
ordered the other co-accused persons to assault him and
thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted the Informant. On
informant's hulla, the witnesses namely, Nunlal Mahto,
Kishori Mahto, Ishri Mahto and Kailu Mahto came to save
him, but the accused persons also assaulted them.
14. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a Formal First Information
Report was registered as Karon P.S. Case No.16 of 1997 dated
26.03.97 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of IPC
against Heera Mahto, Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Munna
Mahto, Raju Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto. After
completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 447 of I.P.C.
against the accused persons. Accordingly, vide order dated
06.09.97, cognizance was taken by the then learned S.D.J.M.
Madhupur at Deoghar and the case was transferred to the
court of Shri J.P.N. Pandey, the leaned J.M. on 15.01.1998.
15. The charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 447 of
IPC were framed against all the accused persons and vide
order dated 07.03.2002, the prosecution evidence was closed
and the statements of the accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On 19.07.2003, the defence
evidence was closed. The defence adduced its evidence.
16. In course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses in
order to prove its case, out of which, PW-1 Nunlal Mahto is
the brother of the informant, PW-2 Kishori Mahto is the
nephew of the informant, PW-3 Kailu Mahto is the son of the
informant, PW-4 Sagar Rai is a hearsay witnesses, PW-5
Raghu Mahto is the informant of the case and PW-6 is the
doctor. The prosecution proved the injury reports which were
marked as Exhibits- 1, 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3.
17. The defence, on the other hand, produced the certified copy of
the judgment dated 21.06.2001 passed in G.R. No.126 of 97 /
T.R. No.279 of 2001 which was marked as Exhibit-A and the
certified copy of the First Information Report of Karon P.S.
Case No.15 of 1997 which was marked as Exhibit-B. The
Exhibits- A and B show that for the same date and time of
occurrence i.e. 25.03.1997 at about 8 to 8.30 A.M., another case
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 325 of IPC was
filed by one Uttam Kumar Yadav son of Heera Mahto against
Raghu Mahto and the witnesses of the present case which goes
to show that some occurrence did take place on 25.03.1997 at
about 8 A.M..
18. The conviction and sentence of the accused persons including
the petitioners is summarised as under:
Sl. Name of Conviction Sentence by Conviction by Sentence by
No. Convict / by trial court trial court appellate appellate
Petitioner (R.I.) court court (R.I.)
1. Munna 149 2 Years 149-set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
2. Pappu 149 2 Years 149 -set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
3. Nepal 149 2 Years 149- set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
325 3 Years & fine 325 06 Months
of Rs.1,000/- & fine of
Rs.1,000/-
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
4. Heera 149 2 Years 149-set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
(deleted) 447 3 Months 447 01 Month
148 2 Years 148 06 Months
324 2 Years 324-aquitted
5. Kistu 149 2 Years 149- set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
6. Manager 149 2 Years 149-set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
325 3 Years & fine 325 06 Months
of Rs.1,000/- & fine of
Rs.1,000/-
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
7. Raju 149 2 Years 149- set aside
Mahto 323 6 Months 323 03 Months
447 3 Months 447 01 Month
325 3 Years & fine 325 06 Months
of Rs.1,000/- & fine of
Rs.1,000/-
147 1 Year 147 03 Months
19. Considering the fact that the F.I.R. in the present case was
lodged as back as in the year 1997 and the petitioners have
faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long period and
there was also case and counter case between the parties and
no previous conviction has been brought on record so far as
the petitioners are concerned, ends of justice would be served
if the sentence of the petitioners is modified to some extent.
20. Accordingly, the sentences of Nepal Mahto and Manager
Mahto are modified and limited to the period already
undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.15,000/-
each and the sentences of Munna Mahto, Pappu Mahto and
Kistu Mahto are modified and limited to the period already
undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.10,000/-
each. The aforesaid fine amounts shall be deposited before the
learned court below within a period of six months from today.
21. The fine amounts, so deposited, are directed to be remitted to
the main victims of the case i.e. P.W.-2 (Kishori Mahto) and
P.W.-5 (Raghu Mahto) or to their legal heirs, as the case may
be, who had suffered injuries pursuant to which the
petitioners - Nepal Mahto and Manager Mahto were convicted
under Section 325 of IPC. The amount should be remitted to
them in equal proportion upon due identification.
22. In case the petitioners do not deposit the fine amount as
directed by this Court, the bail bond furnished by them will be
immediately cancelled by the learned court below and they
will serve the sentence imposed by the learned appellate court.
23. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence of
the petitioners, both the criminal revision applications are
hereby disposed of.
24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
25. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.
26. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned
through FAX / e-mail.
Binit/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
