Ajay Mahato @ Ajamber Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2226 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 489 of 2011
     Ajay Mahato @ Ajamber Mahato                     --- --- Appellant

                                      Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                               --- --- --- Respondent

                       ........
     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
     For the Appellant : Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Saurabh Kumar, Advocates
     For the State     : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

                               JUDGMENT

05/03.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2001 arising out of Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2000, G.R. No. 408 of 2000 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 335 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and a default sentence.

3. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of Rajaram Mahato was that he had purchased a land of Khata no. 52 plot no. 131 and on that land co-villagers namely wife of Niranjan Mahto, his son and Dhani Ram Mahato came there with oxen to cultivate the land. The informant went there and forbade them to do so then all the three accused persons came into altercation with informant and thereafter Ajay Mahato caused hurt with Bhujali to informant on his head and Dhaniram Mahato was giving order to cause hurt. The informant having received injury fell down. The wife of Niranjan Mahato was trying to mediate the matter and she did not cause hurt.

4. Police registered Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 40 dated 02.08,2000 under Section 447, 324/34,307,427 IPC against the three above named accused persons and started investigation. After completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet bearing no. 54 dated 20.12.2000 u/s 447, 324, 307,427/34 IPC against the three accused persons. Cognizance was taken accordingly and case was committed to the court of Sessions.

5. The defence case is innocence and false implication as per the mode of cross- examination and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset has submitted that the appellant does not want to argue this case on the point of conviction on merit and therefore she is confining her arguments on the point of sentence only. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that there was case and counter case on behalf of both the parties. Both parties are agnates of common ancestors (Gotia). It is further pointed out that a counter case was instituted by the mother of the appellant Beepti Devi against the informant party being Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 39 of 2001 dated 02.08.2000, which is marked as Ext. A in which the mother of the appellant sustained three injuries on her body, although they were simple in nature. It is further submitted that in the present case the injured is the informant Rajaram Mahato, who has been examined as P.W.3 and the injuries inflicted were found to be grievous in nature and it happened all of a sudden in heat of passion.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also submitted that appellant has remained in jail for a substantive period of time and he is ready to pay the fine amount by way of compensation to the injured person. Further, it has been pointed out that the incident has occurred as far back as in the year 2000 between the 'Gotias' and appellant has been suffering the trauma and misery of the criminal prosecution for a last 23 years, who is now aged about 45 years and therefore it is urged that lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence and the order of sentence of imprisonment may be modified by imposing the sentence of fine only for which the appellant is ready.

9. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that if the appellant does not want to argue this case on the judgment of conviction then let his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 335 of the Indian Penal Code be upheld. Further it has been submitted on the point of sentence that a reasonable amount of sentence of fine may be imposed upon appellant, under the facts and

circumstances of this case by upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.

10. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records.

11. It is found that the appellant aged about 33 years at the time of trial and over a period of time, he has reached his middle age i.e., about 45 year. It is further found that the occurrence took place in the year 2000 and as such appellant has been facing the trauma of hardship and misery of criminal prosecution since last 23 years. Further, it is found that it is admitted case of the prosecution that both parties are 'Gotias'(agnates of common ancestors) and there was a case and counter case instituted against each of the parties. In the counter case instituted by the mother of the appellant, she had sustained injury which was simple in nature. Further it is found that appellant is ready to pay a reasonable amount of fine by way of compensation as awarded by the learned Trial Court below by the impugned order of sentence i.e., Rs.1000/-. It is further submitted that appellant has already remained in jail for a substantive period of time and therefore under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is manifest that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail again and therefore instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, it is found just and proper that the purpose of justice would be meted out if the sentence of fine is imposed instead of further sentence of imprisonment.

12. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 14.07.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2001 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti for the offence punishable under Section 335 of the IPC and alters the order of sentence under which the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as imposed by the learned trial court, in order to give it to the victim-P.W.3 Rajaram Mahato by way of compensation.

13. Since the appellant is on bail and therefore, a time of four months is given to the appellant to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 ½ years. The appellant may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of

the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the victims P.W.-3 Rajaram Mahato, by way of compensation.

14. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellant, then he will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law .

15. The appellant has been allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment appellant deposits the fine amount, he shall be released and/ discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellant, a notice be sent to the victim P.W.-3 Rajaram Mahato and on his appearance the said fine amount, if so deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to him. In case, the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, or does not appear before the court, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim or else, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Khunti, if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Khunti is directed to co-operate in this regard.

16. This criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above.

17. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

A.Mohanty