Jharkhand High Court
Sikandar Baski vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 496 of 2016
---------
Sikandar Baski ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
WITH
Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2016
---------
1. Santlal Hansda
2. Hakim Baski
3. Munshi Hansda
4. Meri Chore
5. Block Chore
6. Jamadar Baski ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Amicus Curiae
(in Cr. Rev. No.496/2016)
: Mr. Piyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate
(in Cr. Rev. No.18/2016)
For the State : A.P.P.
---------
05/25.08.2023
Heard the parties.
2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of same
impugned judgment passed by Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Godda, accordingly, both these criminal revision
applications are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The petitioners have filed this criminal revision application
against the judgment dated 19.09.2015, passed by Sri Pankaj Kumar,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda in Criminal Appeal
No.81/2011 & 08/2015, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Godda, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and
upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2011
passed by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Godda in connection with G.R. Case No.1212/2007 arising out of
Boarijore P.S. Case No.144 of 2007, holding the petitioners guilty of
offences under Sections 148, 342, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and
thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one and half years for the
offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for six
months alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences under Sections
342 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine,
they were further directed to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. All the
sentences were ordered to run-concurrently.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of
the informant Dulu Murmu alleging therein that on 01.12.2007 at about
12:00 noon, the informant alongwith his son and other family members
were returning home after harvesting paddy, when the petitioners
intercepted them. It is alleged that the petitioners assaulted both the
informant and his son, when other family members came to their rescue,
they were also assaulted.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution had adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. On the basis of material available on the record,
both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have
come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners for
offences under Sections 148, 342 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. From perusal of the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses, it
transpires that the informant Dulu Murmu has been examined as P.W.5.
He has supported the case as made out in the fardbeyan and has stated that
on date of occurrence at about 12:00 noon, when he was returning home
with his son and other family members, petitioners intercepted them and
assaulted them causing injury to him and his family members. The other
witnesses have corroborated the statement of the informant and have
stated that the petitioners had assaulted them causing injury.
From perusal of injury report, which is Exhibit-1, it appears that
Dulu Murmu had sustained simple injuries.
From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the petitioners for offences under Sections
148, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
7. Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf
of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.496 of 2016 and Mr. Piyush Krishna
Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr.
Revision No.18 of 2016 submitted that the occurrence had taken place in
the year 2007. It was further submitted that petitioners have not been
convicted in any other case and as such, they should be given benefit of
provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
There is nothing on the record to show that petitioners have been
convicted in any other case.
8. As discussed above, prosecution has been able to prove its case
against the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 342 and 323/149 of
the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court holding the petitioners guilty
for offences under Sections 148, 342 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal
Code is affirmed. However, the order of sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court directing the petitioners to undergo R.I. for one year and six
months for offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I.
for six months each for offences under Sections 342 and 323/149 of the
Indian Penal Code is set aside.
9. Petitioners shall be released after furnishing security bond of
Rs.20,000/- with two sureties with an undertaking to maintain peace and
good behavior for a period of one year, in default they shall appear before
the learned Court below to serve the sentence as directed by it. The
security bond shall be filed within two months from the date of receipt of
this order.
Both these criminal revision applications are partly allowed with
modification of sentence.
10. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
11. Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Ms.
Diksha Dwivedi, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this
Court during the hearing of this revision application. Member Secretary,
JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for
the services rendered by her.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
