Jharkhand High Court
Kashi Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1085 of 2016
-------
Kashi Mahto ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, A.P.P
--------
06/ Dated 08.09.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner Kashi Mahto has filed this application against the
judgment dated 03.04.2006, passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.V, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.37/2005,
whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.V,
Deoghar partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by modifying the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2005, passed by
Sri Pradeep Kumar Maitra, learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Deoghar in
S.T. No. 60/1999, arising out of Karon P.S. Case No.58/1998, corresponding
to G.R. No.498/1998, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under
Sections 147, 323, 379 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby,
sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year for the offence under Section
147 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I for six months for the offence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I for one year for the offence under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for two and half years
alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he
was further directed to undergo S.I for three months for the offence under
Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.
Learned Appellate Court converted the judgment of conviction under
Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Sections 325/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I for two
and half years alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for three months.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the
informant Rupen Baski, alleging therein that on 18.10.1998,
he came to know that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons
were harvesting his paddy standing in his field. He alongwith his son
Labeshwar Baski went to the place of occurrence and asked the petitioner
alongwith other co-accused persons not to cut paddy from his field, on
which, all the accused persons started assaulting him. There is specific
allegation against the petitioner that he had assaulted the informant Rupen
Baski by lathi on his hand, causing injuries. There is also specific allegation
against other accused persons of assaulting the informant and his other
family members.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence.
The petitioner has also adduced documentary evidence in support of
his case. On the basis of the materials available on record, both the learned
Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent
finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
On perusal of the oral testimony of the informant Rupen Baski P.W.8,
it appears that this witness has fully supported the case as made out in the
fardbeyan and stated that on 18.10.1998, he came to know that the accused
persons were harvesting the paddy standing in his field, on which, he
alongwith his son Labeshwar Baski went to the place of occurrence and
asked the petitioner not to cut his paddy. The accused persons, variously
armed assaulted him and his family members. The specific allegation
against the petitioner is that he had given lathi blow on the hand of the
informant, resulting into the fracture of elbow.
This witness has been cross-examined at length.
The tenor of the cross-examination is that there was land dispute
between the parties and the accused persons were claiming the said land, on
which, the paddy was standing in the field.
Parmeshwar Baski P.W.1, the son of the informant has supported the
prosecution case and has stated that the petitioner alongwith other accused
persons were cutting paddy from his field and when his father went to the
place of occurrence and asked the accused persons not to cut the paddy, the
accused persons variously armed with, assaulted him.
The other witnesses namely Nand Kishore Baski P.W.2 and Hublal
Mahto P.W.4 have also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that
the accused persons including the petitioner had assaulted the informant
party.
Dr. Ramesh Kumar P.W.5 has examined the injured persons and has
stated that on 18.10.1998, he examined Rupen Baski and found following
injuries on his person:
(i) Lacerated wound on left perital bone 12 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.
(ii) Fracture of lower in of ulna.
(iii) Fracture of 5th metacarpal bone.
X'ray with AB mark submitted alongwith injury report in police
station.
Injury No.1 is caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Tangi.
Injury No. II is caused by hard and blunt substance such as iron rod.
Age of injury within five hours.
Both the injuries are grievous in nature.
He has proved the injury report which is Exhibit-3. He has further
stated that he had also examined Parmeshwar Baski, Labeshwar Baski and
Phulin Baski and found simple injuries on their persons. He has adduced the
injury report in evidence which is Exhibit-3 series.
From perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears from the injury
report of Rupen Baski (Exhibit-3) and injury report of other accused persons
that the informant Rupen Baski had sustained fracture on his hand and the
other injured persons had sustained simple injuries.
From perusal of the other documentary evidence, it transpires that the
land in question from which the petitioner is said to have cut paddy was
settled in favour of the informant Rupen Baski by the State Government.
From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that
the informant and his witnesses have supported the fact that the petitioner
had given a lathi blow on the hand of the informant Rupen Baski, causing
grievous injury.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the learned
Trial Court has rightly held the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections
147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Appellate Court
has rightly modified his sentence from Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal
Code to Sections 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1998. There is
nothing on record that the petitioner has been convicted in any other case.
In view of the aforesaid facts, as the occurrence appears to have taken
place due to the land dispute between the parties, the order of sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court so modified by the learned Appellate
Court is set aside.
Accordingly, the petitioner is sentenced to cumulatively undergo R.I
for one year for the aforesaid offences.
This revision application is partly allowed with modification of
sentence.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
