Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2012
1. Ashok Kumar Mandal
2. Dilip Mandal
3. Pramila Devi
4. Kailash Mandal
5. Shiv Shankar Mandal ... ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Durga Charan Mandal ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioners : M/s. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
---
21/14.08.2023 Heard the Parties.
The petitioners have filed this application against the
judgment dated 12.01.2012, passed by Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh,
learned Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2011,
whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj
partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners by affirming the
judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence passed
by Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned J.M.F.C., Rajmahal in P.C.R.
Case No. 238 of 2003, whereby and wherein the learned J.M.F.C.
Rajmahal held the petitioners guilty of offence under sections 147,
341, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them
to undergo S.I. for one year for each of the offences under section
147/ 323 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for one month for the
offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellate court set aside the order of sentence and
directed the petitioners to be released on probation bond of
Rs.5,000/- with two sureties alongwith an undertaking to maintain
peace and good behaviour for a period of two years.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of
complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2, Durga Charan
Mandal, alleging therein that the accused persons had dug a trench
in their land situated adjacent to his land. The complainant protested
the digging of the said trench, on which the petitioner Pramila Devi
started abusing him. Thereafter, all the accused persons variously
armed assaulted his son Shravan Kumar Mandal causing injury.
In order to prove its case, the opposite party no. 2 had
adduced oral evidence in support of his case. The petitioners have
also adduced documentary evidence to the effect that there was land
dispute between the parties and they were involved in series of
litigations on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary both
the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have come to
a concurrent finding towards the guilt of the petitioner.
Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the injured Shravan
Kumar Mandal, who has been examined as C.W. No. 4 has
specifically stated that at the time of occurrence petitioners, Kailash
Mandal, Dilip Mandal and Ashok Kumar Mandal were not present
at the place of occurrence. It was submitted that the other
petitioners namely Pramila Devi and Shiv Shankar Mandal have
already served the sentence by already furnishing bond of Rs.
5,000/- alongwith an undertaking that they will maintain peace and
good behaviour for a period of 2 years. It was further submitted that
the period of 2 years have already expired and there was no
complaint against the petitioners for breaching the undertaking that
they had given in the light of the sentence passed in criminal appeal.
Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the opposite
party no. 2 and his witnesses have corroborated the fact that the
petitioner Pramila Devi had abused the complainant and his family
members and the petitioner Shiv Shankar Mandal had assaulted the
son of the informant and as such the opposite party no. 2 has been
able to prove its case against these two petitioners for the offence
under sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Shravan Kumar Mandal (C.W.4) is an injured witness,
he has specifically stated at paragraph 11 of his deposition that the
occurrence took place for 3-4 minutes. He has further stated that the
petitioners Kailash Mandal, Dilip Mandal and Ashok Kumar
Mandal were not present at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he
has stated that Shankar Mandal had assaulted him causing injury.
He has specifically stated at paragraph 13 of his deposition that the
petitioners had not assaulted his father. Thereafter, he has stated
that the petitioners have assaulted his sister Archana.
Archana Devi C.W.5 has stated that all the petitioners
had participated in assaulting her and her brother.
There is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses
regarding the presence of petitioners Ashok Kumar Mandal, Dilip
Mandal, and Kailash Mandal at the place of occurrence. However,
all the witnesses have stated about the involvement of the
petitioners Pramila Devi and Shiv Shankar Mandal in commission
of the offence charged with.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that
the opposite party no. 2 has failed to prove its case against the
petitioners, Ashok Kumar Mandal, Dilip Mandal and Kailash
Mandal for the offences under sections 147, 341 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
Both the learned trial court as well as the learned
appellate court have come to an erroneous finding regarding guilt of
petitioners Ashok, Ramdas, Dilip Mandal and Kailash Mandal
under the aforesaid sections. As far as the petitioners Pramila Devi,
Shiv Shankar Mandal are concerned, the witnesses have been
consistent in their evidence that they had assaulted Shravan Kumar
Mandal and his sister Archana Devi. Accordingly, I am of the
opinion that the opposite party no. 2 has been able to prove its case
against the petitioners Pramila Devi and Shiv Shankar Mandal for
the offence under sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
This revision application is partly allowed. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial court holding the petitioners, Ashok Kumar Mandal, Dilip
Mandal and Kailash Mandal and modified sentence passed by the
learned appellate court is set aside. However, the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned trial court holding the petitioners
Pramila Devi and Shiv Shankar Mandal for the offence under
sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and modified
sentence passed by the learned appellate court is upheld.
This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
