Jharkhand High Court
Jhagru Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.551 of 2004
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.554 of 2004
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 25.03.2004,
passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V), Deoghar, in Sessions Case
No.138 of 1997).
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.551 of 2004
Jhagru Rajak, S/o Late Gondo Rajak, R/o Village Garia, Tola Mangatilha, P.S.
Madhupur, District- Deoghar. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.554 of 2004
1.Shankar Mahto, S/o Rati Mahto, R/o Village Gariya, P.S. Madhupur, District
:- Deoghar.
2.Sukhdeo Mahto, S/o Late Dhani Mahto, R/o Village Mohpadia, P.S.
Madhupur, District :- Deoghar.
3.Umesh Mahto, S/o Late Puran Mahto, R/o Village :- Rampur, P.S. Sarwan,
District :- Deoghar. .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, SPP
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, SPP
.....
JUDGMENT
03.10.2024.
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for
the State.
1. Both these Criminal Appeals (SJ) arise have been heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment.
2. Both the aforesaid Criminal appeals are directed against Judgment of conviction
and order of sentence both dated 25.03.2004, passed by Learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC-V), Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.138 of 1997, whereby
the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 380, 324/ 149 and 286 IPC
and were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each
under Section 380 IPC and in default, to further undergo imprisonment for three
months each and further to undergo RI for three years under Section 324 IPC and
further to undergo RI for six months under Section 286 IPC and further to
undergo RI for three years under Section 148 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument on the point of
sentence.
4. It is submitted that the present case is an offshoot of a previous case which was
filed by the informant party against the appellants for the death of one Pramila
Devi who was married to one Murari Yadav.
5. The main allegation against the appellant(s) is that in the said case, the informant
party had helped the Police party in securing the arrest of the accused persons
which led to altercation between the appellants and the informant party. There is
no evidence that anyone sustained grievous or critical injury in the alleged
incidence.
6. It is submitted that the appellants are farmers by profession and there is no
criminal antecedent as against them.
7. Learned SPP/ APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and materials on record, it appears
the incidence took place in the year 1996 and the judgment was delivered by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V), Deoghar in the year 2004. There is
nothing on record to suggest that there was any criminal antecedent against them.
9. Considering the nature of offence, protracted nature of litigation as well as age
of the appellants, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment for
the period already undergone by the appellants will serve the ends of justice. The
impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed
and the order of sentence is modified to the extent.
With the modification in the sentence, both the aforesaid Criminal
Appeals (SJ) stand dismissed.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated.03. 10. 2024.
sandeep/pawan
