Jharkhand High Court
Murari Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1448 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
02.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 7th,
Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2002 ]
1. Murari Bhagat, Son of Late Ram Laxman Bhagat.
2. Uma Shankar Bhagat, Son of Late Ram Laxman Bhagat.
3. Sheo Shankar Bhagat, Son of Late Ram Laxman Bhagat.
All are resident of Village - Subhash Nagar,
Layakdih, P.S. - Chirkunda, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated
02.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 173
of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have
been held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and
325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the
I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow
compass is that on 23.02.2001 at about 6:00 A.M., in
the morning the informant Rama Shankar Bhagat was
returning to his home after attending nature's call and
when he reached near his house where accused Sheo
Shankar Bhagat was cutting cauliflower in his field. On
seeing the informant, the accused Sheo Shankar Bhagat
abused the informant. At that time, other above-named
accused being armed with lathi and danda also came
there. Thereafter, all the accused persons hit the
informant by means of lathi and danda, resulting into
injuries on both knees, elbow and back of the informant.
The accused persons committed the occurrence due to
previous enmity and land dispute. At the time of
occurrence, the son of the informant namely, Birendra
Bhagat came to save the informant and thereupon all
the accused persons also assaulted Birendra Bhagat,
resulting into injuries on his body.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered
against the accused for the offence under Sections
341, 323, 325, 506, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has
submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 325,
307, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants.
After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to the court of
Sessions, where the charges were framed under
Sections 307, 323, 341, 506 and 325 of the I.P.C., to
which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all
accused persons, altogether six witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Fardbeyan of Informant.
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report of Informant.
Exhibit-3 : Signature of Informant on
Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-4 : Endorsement on Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-5 : Formal F.I.R.
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication due to previous enmity and land dispute.
However, following documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence.
Exhibit-A : C.C. of judgment of learned
Additional Sessions Judge,
F.T.C., 5th, Dhanbad dated
25.11.2004 passed in S.T. Case
No. 202 / 2001.
Exhibit-B : C.C. of order dated 21.02.2002 of
Sri Dharam Deo Prasad,
Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad
passed in M.P. Case Nos.
613/2001 and 614/2001.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellants guilty for the
offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2006,
this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of
the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the occurrence took place in a sudden manner. There
was exchange of assault from both sides and there was
counter case also lodged by the present appellants
against the informant party of this case. Admittedly,
the appellants were held guilty for the offence under
Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and it was brought
on record that appellants have no criminal background
they have never been convicted for any offence, but
their prayer for extension of benefit of Section 3 / 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was declined by
the learned trial court without recording any special
reasons. Therefore, without touching the merits of the
judgment, learned counsel for the appellants confines
himself towards grant of benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act.
12. The above plea of the appellants has not been seriously
objected by the learned APP appearing for the State.
13. I have gone through the record of the case along with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants.
14. It appears that the occurrence took place in a sudden
manner and there is case and counter case. The
injuries sustained by the informant is not on the vital
part of the body, resulting dangerous to life.
15. It appears that the trial court has failed to record the
fact that the appellants have no criminal background
and no criminal antecedent and they have never been
convicted for any offence.
16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case, the offences for which the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced, the genesis and manner of
occurrence, weapon used, age, antecedent and
character of the appellants, I am of the considered view
that the trial court has failed to record any special
reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants
instead of awarding substantive sentence of
imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be
entitled.
17. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal
is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to
the extent that the appellants are directed to be
released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety
instead of undergoing substantive sentence of
imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court, with
condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall
maintain peace for a period of one year from the date
of furnishing bond.
18. Appellants are further directed to appear before the
concerned trial court within three months from the
date of this order and furnish the bond as per direction
of this Court.
19. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the
Probation Officer periodically and in case of violation of
terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall
be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded
to him.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the court concerned for information
and needful.
[
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 12th November, 2024
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
