Jharkhand High Court
Manik Chandra Mahto @ Manik Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1112 of 2004
1. Manik Chandra Mahto @ Manik Mahto
2. Paresh Mahto
3. Suresh Mahto
4. Kisto Mahto ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
Through Video Conferencing
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
--------
05/ 06.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application is directed against the judgment dated
21.09.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge F.
T. C., Jamtara, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2004 / 17 of 2004;
whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
12.12.2003, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Jamtara, in G.R. Case
No.354 of 1997, T.R. No. 429 of 2003, whereby petitioners were
convicted under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year under Section 325/34 and six months
simple imprisonment under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently, has
been sustained.
3. As per the prosecution case, Bhaglu Mahato-
informant, lodged a Sanha on 13.9.97 alleging that all the accused
assaulted him while he was cutting bamboo from bamboo clumps;
when his family members reached on the spot, they were also
assaulted by the accused persons with lathi, fists and slaps causing
severe injuries upon them. Thereafter, the injured rushed to the
police station and lodged a Sanha and subsequently were
forwarded to Jamtara Hospital for treatment.
On the basis of Sanha, Jamtara police registered an F.I.R.
on 23.9.97 and upon investigation submitted chargesheet against
the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Finally, after trial, they were convicted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his
argument on the question of sentence and submits that all the
petitioners remained in custody for 103 days and during entire
period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail; as such,
the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment
and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the
courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside,
however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the impugned judgments including the lower
courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revisional
jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the
courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by
the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is,
hereby sustained.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from
record that the incident is of the year 1997 and 25 years have
elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of
litigation for the last 25 years. Further, all the petitioners also
remained in custody for about 103 days and during entire period
of bail they never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the
incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners
or any mental depravity.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back
to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the
sentence is modified in lieu of fine.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld
by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the
petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already
undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.1,500/- (one
thousand five hundred) each.
10. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the aforesaid
fine of Rs.1,500/- (one thousand five hundred) each within a
period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing
which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned trial court.
11. With the aforesaid observation, direction and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application stands disposed of.
12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of
their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-
charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
