Jharkhand High Court
Basir Mallik Son F Late Mansur Mallik vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.807 of 2006
------
1. Basir Mallik Son f Late Mansur Mallik.
2. Sadrul Mallik Son of Late Mansur Mallik.
3. Jasim Mallik Son of Sadrul Mallik.
4. Nasim Mallik Son of Sadrul Mallik.
All residents of Village- Andudih, P.S. Giridih (M) District-
Giridih. .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ravi Bhushan Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N.Ojha, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 14.11.2024
By Court:- Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants as well as Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned
Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This present appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 03.05.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court-I, Giridih) in Sessions Case No. 258 of 2004,
whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty for the
offences under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and no sentence
awarded under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Factual Matrix
3. The prosecution case is based upon the information given by the
informant Nureja Begum (P.W.3) has given a written information
on 05.12.2003 to the Officer-In-Charge of Giridih (M) P.S.
mentioning there is that about 2 to 3 days prior to the occurrence,
the co-villager of the informant namely Sadrul was demanding
some rupees as debt which was not given for which he gave
threatening to the informant. On 05.12.2003, at about 06:00, when
the informant was going to tie her bullock, then all the appellants
along with other co-accused who were acquitted from the
charges after trial came there and started assaulting the
informant by fists, slaps and rod. Meanwhile, the husband of the
informant came there to defend the informant, but he was also
assaulted by them. The accused persons also snatched golden
bali weighing 5 Ana bhar, bala of hand and payal and other
house stolen other household articles.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. was registered
against six accused persons for the offences under Section 341,
323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354, 379/34, 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and accordingly, charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34, 307/34, 354/34 of the I.P.C.
have been framed against all the accused persons as well as
charges for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C.
was also framed against accused Sadrul Mallik and all the
charges have been read over and explained to the accused
persons to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused
persons, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the
prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit 1 : First Information Report
Exhibit 2 : Injury Report
Exhibit 2/5 : Five Injury reports
Exhibit X & XII : X-Ray Reports (Two).
8. The case of defence is denial from the charge and further defence
is that appellants are innocent who have not committed any
offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of
the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, held the
appellants guilty for the offences under Section 147, 148 and
under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences as
stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 03.05.2006; this Criminal Appeal has been
preferred on behalf of the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants without toucing the merits of
the case has confined themselves to the grant of benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act. It is further submitted that the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place due to demand of
Rs.2,000/- as debt by the appellants from the informant party
which culminated into scuffle and exchange of assault. It is
further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered for the
offences under Section 341, 323, 325, 354, 379 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused persons, but
the charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Section
341, 323, 354, and 379 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
12. The learned trial court has held the appellants guilty for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324 and 325 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence was
awarded to undergo three years imprisonment for the offence
under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
raised no serious objection as regard to aforesaid contentions
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants rather
defended the impugned judgment on merits.
14. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of both sides and also perused the impugned
judgment and order along with materials available on record.
15. It appears that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner and
there is case and counter case. The injuries sustained by the
informant are not on the vital part of the body, resulting
dangerous to life.
16. It further transpires that there was no criminal antecedent of the
appellants and they have never been convicted for any offence,
but the learned trial court without recording any specific reasons
swayed upon the nature of offence committed with a woman and
her husband has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment
to all the accused persons. The appellants deserve the benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act. Accordingly, impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires
interference by this Court.
17. 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, 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.
18. 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 the 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.
19. 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.
20. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the District
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 them.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court At Ranchi
Dated: 14.11.2024
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
