Jharkhand High Court
Amulya Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 374 of 2015
1. Amulya Rajwar, Son of Late Chhutu Rajwar.
2. Aghanu Rajwar, Son of Late Sanichar Rajwar
All residents of village-Naudiha, P.O. Barwadda, P.S.-
Barwadda (Govindpur), District- Dhanbad ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ravindra Nath Mandal son of late Bharat Mandal resident of village
Nagarkiyari, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
2(a). Hem Chandra Mandal S/o late Bharat Mandal, agaed about 73
years R/o Village Nagarkiyari, P.O.- Nagarkiyari, P.S. Barwadda,
District Dhanbad-828109 ......Opposite parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Amicus
.....
Order No.16/ Dated:11.06.2024
1. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against Judgment and order
dated 03.03.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in
Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 2011 in connection with C.P. Case No.
1330 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 01.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad convicting the petitioners for the
offence under Sections 147, 379 IPC and sentencing them to undergo
SI for one year u/s 147 I.P.C. and S.I. for one year for the offence
under Section 379 I.P.C. to run the sentence concurrently has been
upheld and affirmed.
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision is that on 23.11.1998
between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the petitioners and others cut the
informant's paddy crops and took it away. While the petitioners were
cutting the paddy, then the informant and his brother objected the
petitioners, whereupon the petitioners abused them and hurled stones
towards them. The petitioners took away paddy worth Rs. 5,000/-
from Mouza Naudiha, Mouza No. 119, Khata No. 186, Plot No. 224,
227, 228, 235 measuring total area of 1.15 acres. Earlier also the
accused persons had cut paddy for which another case was instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned judgment
and order has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence and
submitted that there is bonafide land dispute between the parties for
which Civil Suit bearing Title Suit No. 521 of 1965 filed on behalf
the petitioners has been dismissed. Thereafter, criminal proceedings
were also drawn between the parties and under bonafide land dispute,
present case for theft of paddy crops was instituted by the informant
of this case. On earlier occasion also the petitioners were held guilty
and released on probation. In this case present petitioners have been
sentenced to undergo one year SI for both counts of offences. The
petitioners have also undergone more than one month imprisonment
during trial of the case and pendency of the appeal and this revision.
The dispute between the parties are long drawn and very old. This
case was also instituted in the year 1998. Therefore, in the ends of
justice petitioners may be awarded fine instead of undergoing the
substantive sentence of imprisonment which will meet the ends of
justice in this case.
4. On the other hand learned Amicus appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 has strenuously argued that the petitioners are
habitual offender and on earlier occasion also admittedly, they were
held guilty and sentenced for the same type of incident i.e. of cutting
and stealing paddy crops sown by the informant parties and taking
lenient view they were extended benefit of probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and were released on probation bond but again such type
of harassing attitude was adopted disturbing the peaceful possession
of the informant by cutting his crops stealthily. Therefore, the
sentence awarded against the petitioners are adequate and reasonable
which does not warrant any interference in this revisional proceeding.
5. I have gone through the entire aspects of this case in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both sides and perused the record. It
appears that core dispute between the parties is related to land dispute
and several proceeding (Criminal and Civil) have been undergone
between the parties frequently. As per complaint which was lodged in
the year 1998 there was loss of Rs. 5,000/- paddy crop of the
complainant at the hands of the present petitioners. Petitioners have
also remained in judicial custody for one month nine days and also
undertake to compensate the complainant through monetary
compensation. Admittedly, there is no physical violence in this case.
Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, considering the
nature of offence committed by the petitioner and circumstances
under which the same was given effect, the sentence of substantive
imprisonment imposed against the petitioner appears fit to be
converted into payment of fine. The offence under Section 379 IPC is
punishable with imprisonment for either description for a term which
may extend to three years or with fine or both. Hence impugned
Judgment is modified to the extent that petitioner shall be sentenced
to undergo imprisonment already undergone along with
compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to be paid to the
complainant or his legal representatives as the case may be within
eight weeks from the date of this order which shall meet the ends of
Justice in this case failing which the petitioners shall be called upon
to sustain remaining period of sentence already awarded against them
by the concerned trial/appellate court. In view of above, this revision
is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent
mentioned above.
6. Let the copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the
court below for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rajnish/
