Jharkhand High Court
Haradhan Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 3 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1537 of 2016
Haradhan Mandal, son of Late Mouji Mandal, Resident of Village -
Tumdaha, P. O. & P. S.- Barwadda, District-Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. Chaina Devi, Wife of Ishwar Mandal,
3. Krishna Mandal, son of Ishwar Mandal,
4. Bhanu Mandal, son of Ishwar Mandal,
5. Navik Mandal, son of Sri Ishwar Mandal;
6. Ishwar Mandal, son of Late Bhagtu Mandal,
7. Purnima Devi, Wife of Krishna Mandal;
8. Kalpana Devi, wife of Navik Mandal;
All Residents of village- Tumdaha, P. O. & P. S.- Barwadda, District-
Dhanbad: ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP
---
09/03.09.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed for the following reliefs:
"That the instant Criminal Revision is directed against the
Judgement and Order dated 14.09.2016 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 200/2013 by Shri Ambuj Nath, Learned Sessions
Judge, Dhanbad whereby Appellants have been given benefit
of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act with a
direction to appear before the court below within a period of
30 working days and the Learned court below on their
appearance shall release them after due admonition by
reversing the Judgement and Order of conviction and
sentence dated 16.05.2013 passed in G. R. No. 3609/2003/ T.
R No.- 765/2013 arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S.
Case No. 239/2003 by shri Abhishek Kumar, Learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad convicting the
Opposite Parties for the offence U/S 147, 148, 448, 323, 324,
341 I. P.C. and further convicting the Opposite Party No.6
Ishwar Mandal for the offence U/S 325 I. P.C. sentencing
them to undergo S. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/- and in default of fine to undergo further
Imprisonment for a term of 15 days for the offence U/s 147,
of I. P.C., for the offence U/s 148 I.P.C. to undergo S.I. for 2
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine to
further undergo Imprisonment for one month, for the offence
U/s 323 I.P.C. to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo Imprisonment
for 15 days, for the offence U/s 341 I.P.C. to undergo S.I. for
one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default
thereof to undergo Further Imprisonment for 3 days, for the
offence U/s 448 I. P.C. to undergo S. I. for one year and to
pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further
undergo Imprisonment for a term of 15 days, for the offence
U/s 323 I.P.C. to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further
Imprisonment for a terms of one month and sentenced
Opposite Party No.6 for the offence U/s 325 I.P.C. to
undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default thereof to further undergo Imprisonment for a term
of one month and all the sentences shall run concurrently."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court, has submitted
that both the learned Courts have sustained the conviction, but the
learned appellate Court has given the benefit under section 3 of
Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the learned appellate
Court ought to have sustained the sentence passed by the learned trial
Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-
State has submitted that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act has
rightly been extended. There has been case and counter case between
the parties and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment passed
by the learned appellate Court does not call for any interference.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the learned appellate Court had acquitted the accused persons for
offence under section 147, 148 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. The
accused Ishwar Mandal was also acquitted of the charge under section
325 of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, the learned Court held the
appellants (opposite party nos. 2 to 8 herein) guilty of offence under
section 324, 448 and 341 of Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned appellate Court, while granting the benefit of
section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, has passed a reasoned order
by recording that there was case and counter case between the parties
and the informant parties have been held guilty in the case filed by the
accused, but in appeal they have been let out after giving benefit of
section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. There was nothing on record
to show that the appellants before the learned appellate Court were
earlier held guilty for any offence and considering these aspects of the
matter, the learned appellate Court extended the benefit of section 3 of
Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants (opposite party nos. 2 to
8 herein).
7. This Court finds that the learned appellate Court has considered
the materials and passed a well-reasoned order while extending the
benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
8. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity
in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court
modifying the sentence and accordingly, there is no merit in this
petition which is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court
concerned through 'FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
