Jharkhand High Court
Shyamlal Mahto Son Of Latu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006
1. Shyamlal Mahto Son of Latu Mahto
2. Kishun Mahto Son of Budhan Mahto
3. Basudeo Mahto Son of Lekho Mahto
4. Dinesh Yadav Son of Ram Chandra Yadav
5. Banshi Mahto Son of Chuto Sao
6. Gopal Mahto Son of Shyamlal Mahto
7. Ganesh Mahto Son of Sri Barlam Mahto
8. Bandhan Mahto Son of Dumarchand Mahto
All residents of Dughiyano, Post Office and Police Station
Birni, District Giridih.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 19.11.2024
By Court:- The service report received from Birani Police Station,
District Giridih reveals that appellant No.1 namely Shyamlal
Mahto died on 07.01.2021.
2. In view of the above, this appeal stands abated qua
appellant No.1 Shyamlal Mahto.
Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 1
3. Heard Mr. S.K. Murtty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Addl.
P.P. appearing for the State.
4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 13.07.2006 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court-IV, Giridih in Sessions Trial
Case No.102 of 2001 whereby and whereunder all the
appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
(R.I.) for two years for the offence punishable under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for six months for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., appellant
No.2 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the
offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and
remaining seven appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 of
the I.P.C. However, no separate sentences for the offences
under Sections 447/149 and 341/149 of the I.P.C.
5. The prosecution case is based on written information of
Pran Mahto (informant) stating inter alia that he purchased a
piece of land in Mauja Khergarha through registered sale
deeds and was in possession of it. On 27.09.1999, while the
informant's son was ploughing the field, the accused,
Shyamlal Mahto, came there and told that he was ploughing
more land than his share. It is further alleged that while the
informant was having a discussion with accused Shyamlal
Mahto, the other accused persons arrived, who were armed
with weapons, subsequently, thereafter Shyamlal Mahto
ordered for assault and the accused persons started
assaulting the informant, his son and his wife with various
weapons causing injuries to them. The incident was
witnessed by laborers working nearby and the informant
lodged the case after receiving medical treatment.
On the basis of written information of the informant,
Birani P.S. Case No. 81 of 1999 was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147/323/324/341 of the
Indian Penal Code.
6. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences
and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions, thereafter, the
case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Giridih for trial and disposal. Charges were framed
against the accused persons which were read over and
explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7. The defence has also examined two witnesses namely
D.W.-1 Surya Narayan Ram and D.W.-2 Shyam Lal.
8. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty
for the offences and sentenced as stated above which has
been assailed in this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the
merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the
point of non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
'The Act of 1958') to the appellants to which they deserve. It
is submitted that the appellants have been held guilty and
sentenced for the offences under Section 323, 324, 147, 447,
341 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and maximum
sentence is awarded to the extent of two years. It is apparent
from the impugned judgment and order that the appellants
have taken plea of being first offender having no criminal
antecedent and no previous conviction. The learned trial
court has also pointed out the above facts but without
recording any special reasons to not grant the benefit of the
Act of 1958, has awarded substantive sentence of
imprisonment against the appellants. The genesis of
occurrence is bonafide land dispute between the parties and
cultivation of paddy crops from the disputed land. There was
no pre-meditation rather the occurrence took place in a
sudden manner upon sudden quarrel. Therefore, the
appellants may be extended the benefit of the Act of 1958
instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment
and this appeal may be allowed.
10. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and
submitted that there are three injured persons in this case
who were assaulted by sharp cutting weapon as well as hard
and blunt substances and women folk were also not spared
from assault, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly
Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 5
imposed substantive sentence of imprisonment against the
appellants which requires no interference by way of this
appeal and is fit to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of contention of
respective parties. It appears that the prosecution case was
initiated on the basis of written information given by the
informant stating inter alia that while his son was ploughing
his purchased land of Khata No.1/35, Plot No.5, area 2 acres
20 decimals situated in Mauja Khargarha and was having a
discussion with the accused Shyamlal Mahto other accused
persons arrived armed with weapons and surrounded the
informant and his son. Shyamlal Mahto allegedly ordered the
assault and the accused began attacking the informant, his
son and his wife with various weapons, causing injuries.
Jamuna Mahto fled after sustaining injuries, while the
informant and his wife were also injured in the attack.
12. In the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were
examined out of them P.W.-3 Uma Devi (wife of the
informant), P.W.-4 Jamuna Mahto (son of the informant) and
P.W.-6 Pran Mahto (informant) are injured witnesses and
P.W.-7 Dr. Subodh Singh is the doctor who had examined the
injured persons.
13. It appears that specific role has been assigned against
the appellants for causing injuries to the informant party but
at the same time, it is also quite obvious that there was land
dispute between the parties and the scuffle took place in a
sudden manner and injuries are also found to be simple in
nature. There is also no doubt that it was first offence of the
appellants, therefore, considering the overall factual
background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of
crime committed by the appellants, their age, character and
antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to
extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding
substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as
inflicted by the learned trial court. Therefore, appellants are
directed to appear before the concerned trial court within
three months from the date of this judgment and the learned
trial court is also directed to release the appellants giving the
benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon
Cr.A(SJ) No.1060 of 2006 Page | 7
furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount
each to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period
of one year from the date of furnishing the bond to the
satisfaction of concerned Trial Court. The learned trial court
may also call for a report from the concerned District
Probation Officer, if so desired and release the appellants on
furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the
terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be
called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive
the substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to
him by the learned trial court.
14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence as stated above.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
16. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
