Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Kumar Mahto @ Surendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.765 of 2020
----
Surendra Kumar Mahto @ Surendra Mahto .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
----
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
----
th
06/Dated: 17 February, 2022
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 31.07.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.116 of
2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih whereby and
whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.08.2018 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih in Trial Case No.1097
of 2018 arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.74 of 2010 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.675 of 2010, registered for the offence under Sections 147,
148, 448, 323, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has been upheld and
the criminal appeal was dismissed against the petitioner.
2. It appears that for a piece of land there is dispute between two groups
and scuffle has taken place in which both the parties have sustained injury.
This revisionist has been made an accused in the above case while he has
also lodged a case in which the trial has been conducted against the
informant party through Trial No.1096 of 2018 by the same court. They have
been convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and have been given benefit
of the Probation of Offenders Act.
3. In the present case, after the trial the accused persons have been
convicted and punished for one month simple imprisonment for the offence
under Section 447 and six months simple imprisonment for the offence
under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The said order has been upheld by the
appellate court so far as this revisionist is concerned and other co-accused
have been acquitted from the charges.
4. At the very outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the court below has failed to take into consideration that the
revisionist is not the aggressor rather the fight has taken place over a piece of
land. In fact, both the parties have been convicted for the said incident.
Further, it has been submitted that the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act has been denied to this revisionist only on the ground that for
the same piece of land, he was earlier punished under Section 323 of the
I.P.C. In view of above facts, submission has been advanced that the period
of sentence should be reduced.
Further, the incident is of the year 2010 and the revisionist has
suffered due to long litigation and has also remained in custody for about
forty days.
5. Having heard the counsel for the revisionist and for the State, this
Court finds that there is no serious injury to the victim. The dispute is over a
piece of land. Both the parties have suffered injury and the court below has
not given finding who are the aggressor.
6. Considering the above facts and the fact that the revisionist has
already remained in custody for forty days, the sentencing part is modified
and it is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 40 days.
Further, fine of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the revisionist. If the fine is
not paid by the revisionist, he will have to remain in custody for one month
simple imprisonment.
7. With above modification of the sentencing part, the present criminal
revision application being Criminal Revision No.765 of 2020 stands
disposed of.
In view of disposal of the present criminal revision, pending I.A., if
any, also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
