Jharkhand High Court
Mamta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
Mamta Devi, aged about 37 years, wife of Shri Bajrang Mahto, resident of
Village- Gerwa Tand, Gola, P.O. & P.S. Gola, District- Ramgarh
... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
10/14.10.2024 I.A. No. 9682 of 2024
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. I.A. No. 9682 of 2024 has been filed for grant of suspension/stay of
the judgment of conviction, during pendency of the present criminal appeal.
3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant has already been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 27.03.2023. He further submits that this appeal has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both
dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-IV cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.As. Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. Case
No.348 of 2021, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections
147, 323, 341, 342, 427, 435, 353, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and she
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year for the offence under
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, S.I. of 15 days for the offence under
Section 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of six months for the offence
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of one year for the
offence under Section 353/149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. of one year
for the offence under Section 427/149 of the Indian Penal code and R.I. of
two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 435/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, she shall further
undergo S.I. of three months and direction was there that all the sentences
shall run concurrently. He further submits that the FIR was registered on
30.08.2016 against unknown persons in respect of the alleged occurrence
which has taken place on 29.08.2016 at 05:00 p.m. He submits that in the
said occurrence, there is no specific role of the appellant. He then submits
that none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to support the
prosecution case showing the involvement of the appellant and only bald
allegation is made of instigation by the appellant to the mob of 400-500
persons. He submits that none of the witnesses have pointed out any
specific role in that occurrence by the appellant. By way of drawing
attention of the Court to para 26 of the judgment of conviction, he submits
that the impugned judgment is inconsistent with the materials available on
record. He submits that the appellant was a Member of the Legislative
Assembly from Ramgarh Cantonment, but due to her conviction, she could
not fight the election. He submits that there is no likelihood of taking up of
this appeal for hearing in recent time and in view of that, the conviction
may kindly be suspended.
4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed
the prayer on the ground that the allegation of instigation is there against
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
the appellant to the mob of 400-500 persons and in view of that, the prayer
made in the said I.A. may kindly be rejected.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. The informant-
Kaleshwar Ram Munda was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the occurrence was taken place on 29.08.2016
and he was posted as driver at Circle Office, Gola and he exhibited his
signature over written report as Ext.1, but he did not identify any of the
accused and refused to identify the accused, as such, he has been declared
hostile on the point of identification. P.W.3 Ramdhar Tiway has taken name
of other persons and identified also and they have been acquitted, however,
the present appellant and one Rajiv Jaiswal have been convicted and 11
accused persons have been acquitted.
6. The ramification of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1950 are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of
the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the
electorate, who have elected her to represent their constituency.
7. This Court considered the above aspects and particularly that 11
accused persons have been acquitted and only two accused persons have
been convicted and others have also been identified by the witnesses,
hence the judgment of conviction needs to be stayed and further the
appellant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
27.03.2023, therefore, there shall be stay of the judgment of conviction
dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
Judge-IV cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.As. Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. Case
No.348 of 2021, arising out of Gola P.S. Case No.65/2016, corresponding to
G.R. No.997/2016, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal.
8. In view of the above, I.A. No.9682 of 2024 is allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2023
