Jharkhand High Court
Ram Deo Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 630 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
31.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No. V),
Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2003)
---
1. Ram Deo Mahto
2. Kaila Mahto @ Kailash Mahto
3. Manoj Mahto
4. Anoj Mahto
5. Sanoj Mahto
6. Kuldip Mahto ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P
--
11/01.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, both dated 31.03.2004 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, (F.T.C No.-V), Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2003,
whereby the appellant no. 1, Ram Deo Mahto, 2, Kaila Mahto @ Kailash
Mahto and appellant no. 4, Anoj Mahto and appellant no. 6, Kuldip Mahto
were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148 I.P.C and
were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years; R.I for 1 year under Section
448; R.I. for 3 years under Section 324/149 I.P.C and appellant no. 3,
Manoj Mahto and appellant no. 5, Sanoj Mahto were convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C and were sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 2 years; R.I for 1 year under Section 448 I.P.C; R.I. for 3
years under Section 324 I.P.C and Sections 448, 324/149 IPC against all
the accused persons. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.10.2001 at about 7:00
p.m the informant and her family members were in their house. The
informant's son, who has come after 10 days after being released on bail
in a murder case. The accused-appellants were having rod, lathi entered
into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant on her head
causing injuries. On hue and cry, several persons assembled there in order
to save her, but they were also assaulted by the accused-appellants. At the
time of occurrence, her husband was on duty and there was no male
member in her house.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants made the following
submissions:
(i) The impugned judgment and order of conviction is
illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and as such is
liable to be set aside.
(ii) Learned trial court has not scrutinized the evidence in
real and perspective manner.
(iii) Learned trial court has not taken judicial notice regarding
the admission made by the Investigating officer (P.W.9)
relating to contradictions of the witnesses.
(iv) Learned trial court ought to have taken judicial notice
regarding the medical evidence of the appellant.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an
alternative prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the
incident is of the year 2001 and the appellants have suffered the mental
agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly, at least, modify the
sentence for the period already undergone as the appellants are middle
aged persons and never misused the privilege of bail and further the
appellants are having no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellants. However, she fairly submits that as per record, there is no
any criminal antecedent of the appellants; as such, if the sentence is
modified, then the same should be modified in lieu of fine.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR
and looking to the comprehensive facts and circumstances of the case
and the deposition of prosecution witnesses, who have considerably
proved the case of the prosecution and the finding of the learned trial
court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of
conviction and thus the same is sustained.
7. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for
the appellants with respect to sentence awarded to them; this Court is of
the view that at this stage remitting the appellants to the rigors of
imprisonment at this juncture of his life would not serve the ends of
justice as admittedly the appellants remained in custody for few days
8. Thus, on the point of sentence, looking to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged incident took
place in the year 2001 and about 22 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically
and the appellants were in jail for few days and they have never
misused the privilege of bail and now they are not involved in any
criminal activities; thus, they have a chance to reform.
9. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of
the considered view that without interfering with the judgment of
conviction, the sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the
appellants shall be released for the period already undergone but
subject to payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/- each.
10. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced for the
period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/- each
before D.L.S.A, Deoghar.
11. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs. 3,000/- each within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A, Deoghar; failing which they shall
serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
13. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds, subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial
court, Secretary, D.L.S.A, Deoghar and also to the appellants through
the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
