Jharkhand High Court
Mukti Pada Bera vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 434 of 2016
1. Mukti Pada Bera
2. Appu Barik @ Apu Barik
3. Jay Hari Bera @ Jeyhari Bera
4. Sandesh Bera --- --- Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P
For the Informant: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
---
06 / 29.08.2023 Petitioners have filed this revision application against the judgment
dated 23.01.2016, passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, District and Additional
Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2016, whereby and
wherein, the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 14.12.2015, passed by Shri Kuldeep, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Ghatsila in G.R. Case No. 9/2011 arising out of Gurabanda P.S. Case
No. 02/2011, holding the petitioners guilty of the offences under sections 323
and 452 I.P.C and thereby sentencing them to undergo S.I for six months for
the offence under section 323 I.P.C and S.I for two years along with a fine of
Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under section 452 I.P.C. In default of payment of
fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I for one month. All the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently. The period already undergone during the trial
was ordered to be set off.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the
Informant Siti Kantha Bera, alleging therein that on 01.01.2011 at about 8.00
pm, petitioners entered into his house and assaulted him and his wife. They also
damaged the door and window of his house causing damage worth Rs. 20,000/-
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidences. On the basis of evidences available on record, both the
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a
concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
4. Ms. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
submitted that she will confine her argument on the point of sentence imposed
by the learned Trial Court. Occurrence has taken place in the year 2011 and the
petitioners have been held guilty for the offences under sections 323 and 452
I.P.C. It was further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that
petitioners have been convicted in any other case or they have been in custody
in any other case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioners may be given
the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
5. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special P.P., assisted by Mr. Mayank
Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant, have no objection to the prayer made
on behalf of the petitioners for extending the benefit of section 4 of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made, judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, so affirmed by the learned
Appellate Court, is set aside. Petitioners shall be released on furnishing bond of
Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court. Such bond shall be furnished within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While furnishing such bond,
they will also furnish an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for
a period of two years, failing which, learned Trial Court shall take all coercive
steps to apprehend the petitioners to serve the remaining sentence, as directed
by it.
7. This revision application is allowed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed
of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
