Jharkhand High Court
Jitan Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1226 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.07.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 1996/719 of 2002.)
---------
1.Jitan Mahato
2.Mitan Mahato
3.Juddi Mahato
4.Nawal Mahato
5.Subal Mahato
6.Bachu Mahato
7.Churka Mahato
8.Sidhi Mahato ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Adv.
For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, APP
---------
06/Dated: 19th July, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
pursuant to the order of this court a report has been received
which transpires that the appellant No.6-Bachu Mahto has
died.
3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal stand
dismissed as abated against the appellant No.6- Bachu
Mahto.
4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2004 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in
Sessions Trial No. 192 of 1996/719 of 2002, whereby the
appellant nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8 were convicted for the offence
punishable under section 148 IPC and appellants 2, 3, 4 and
5 were convicted under section 147 IPC and all the appellants
were convicted under sections 325/149 & 323 IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under
section 325/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-. In default
of payment of fine they will have to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. Further sentenced with R.I. for
five months for the offence under section 323 IPC. The
appellants 2, 3, 4 and 5 have further sentenced to undergo
R.I. for four months under section 147 IPC. Appellants 1, 6, 7
and 8 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for five months for the
offence punishable under section 148 IPC and further all the
sentences were directed to concurrently.
5. The prosecution case in short is that on 03.01.1996,
when the informant reached his house from his duty then his
wife said that on 02.01.1996, the appellant-Sidhi Mahato and
his family members had hurled stones on his house and had
used filthy languages for her. Therefore, the informant called
some villagers and asked Jitan Mahato and Siddhi Mahato
who abused her wife and had thrown stones on his house.
Then all the accused persons surrounded him and assaulted
them. As a result of which he sustained injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there
is previous enmity between the parties and one civil dispute is
going on between the parties. He further submits that I.O. has
not been examined during the course of trial and there are
discrepancies between the evidence of two medical report but
the learned court below has not considered at all.
Learned Counsel, after the aforesaid argument
made an alternative prayer on the question of sentence and
submits that the incident is of the year 1996 and the
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 appellants are middle
aged persons and they never misused the privilege of bail and
further there are having no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that the learned trial court has not committed any
error in convicting the appellants. However, he fairly submits
that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the
appellants.
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 the
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 regard to sentence awarded to
them; this Court is of the view that at this stage remitting the
appellants to the rigors of imprisonment at this juncture of
their life would not serve the ends of justice. Though the
appellants were all along bail during trial but they never
misused the priviledge of bail.
9. Thus, on 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 1996 and about 27
years have passed and that period is sufficient to exhaust
anybody mentally, physically and economically and now they
are not involved in any criminal activities; thus, they have a
chance to reform.
10. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances,
I am of considered view that without interfering with the
judgment of conviction, the sentence ought be modified to the
extent that the surviving appellants shall be released for the
period already undergone, but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.3,000/-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. Rs.3,000/-each.
12. It is made clear that the surviving appellants shall pay
the aforesaid fine of Rs.3,000/-each, within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before
the D.L.S.A., Deoghar; 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 bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
court, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Deoghar and also to the surviving
appellants through officer in charge of the concerned police
station.
16. The lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
