Jharkhand High Court
Budh Ram Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1425 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
28.05.2004 passed by learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner-
cum-Spl. Judge No. II, C.B.I (A.H.D), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 14 of
2000)
---
1. Budh Ram Mahto
2. Jairam Mahto
3. Balku Mahto
4. Panchu Mahto
5. Arjun Mahto ....Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Baiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. B. Shashtri, A.P.P.
---
05/21.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, both dated 28.05.2004, passed by learned IVth Additional
Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl. Judge No. II, C.B.I (A.H.D), Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2000, whereby the appellants were convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 323/324/34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 2 years under Section 324 I.P.C and R.I. for 6 months under Section
323 I.P.C. It was further ordered that both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.07.1999 when the
informant along with Jai Prakash Mahto (P.W.4) was returning back after
attending the call of nature, suddenly one person stopped him near the house
of appellant no. 1 for some urgent discussion. In the meanwhile, the appellant
nos. 1 and 2 came from back door having armed with Tangi and appellant no.
3 having armed with Lathi while appellant no. 4 having armed with sword
and appellant no. 5 also came there and assaulted the informant by means of
Tangi on his head, causing injury.
4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court to the appellants
intimating about the date of hearing of this appeal, an affidavit has been filed
by the State indicating therein that notice has been served upon appellant nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4; however, the same could not be served upon appellant no. 5-
Arjun Mahto as he died during pendency of this appeal. Death certificate for
the same has also been annexed with the said affidavit.
Having regard to the aforesaid development, the instant appeal is
dismissed as abated against the appellant no. 5-Arjun Mahto.
5. 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 failed to appreciate the fact that
there were several persons present at the place of
occurrence, but not a single independent witness has been
examined.
(iii) Learned court below should have taken into
consideration that the witnesses have contradicted each
other on material particulars and regarding the manner of
occurrence.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument made an alternative
prayer on the question of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year
1999 and the surviving 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 surviving appellants are middle aged persons and
they never misused the privilege of bail.
6. 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, he fairly admits that there is no criminal antecedent as against them
as per record; as such, if the sentence is modified, then the same should be
modified in lieu of fine.
7. 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 findings of the learned trial court, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and thus the same is
sustained.
8. Now coming to the alternative argument of learned counsel for the
appellants with respect to sentence awarded to surviving appellants; this
Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the surviving appellants to the
rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of their life would not serve the ends
of justice.
9. 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 1999 and about 24 years have passed and that period is
sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and the
surviving appellants remained in jail for about 58 days and they have never
misused the privilege of bail, thus, they have a chance to reform. Further,
there is no criminal antecedent against the surviving appellants.
10. 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 appellant
no.1-Budh Ram Mahto, appellant no. 2-Jairam Mahto, appellant no.3-Balku
Mahto and appellant no. 4-Panchu Mahto, shall be released for the period
already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- each.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the surviving appellants are sentenced for
the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- each
before D.L.S.A, Ranchi.
12. It is made clear that the appellant no. 1-Budh Ram Mahto, appellant
no. 2-Jairam Mahto, appellant no.3-Balku Mahto and appellant no.4-Panchu
Mahto shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 2,500/- each, within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before D.L.S.A.
Ranchi; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned trial court.
13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
14. The surviving appellants shall be discharged from the liability of
their bail bond, subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A, Ranchi and also to the surviving appellants through the
officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
