Arjun Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1359 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Arjun Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 271 of 2004
1.Arjun Mandal
2. Nakul Mandal
3. Basudeo Mandal
   Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Sukar Mandal
4.Sukar Mandal S/o late Bhola Mandal
  All residents of village Kulahriya, P.S-Madhupur, Sub division
Madhupur, District-Deoghar                  ......       Appellants
                       Versus
The State of Jharkhand                     .......      Respondent
                      -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

--------

For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP

-------

Oral Judgment in Court 10/Date:03rd January, 2025

This Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.271 of 2004 has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.104 of 2000 by Sri Nalin Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar by which the Appellant No.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 and sentenced to undergo RI for five (05) each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand) each.

However, the Appellant No.4-Sukar Mandal has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and he has been directed to be released on probation upon executing and entering into a bond of peace and good conduct with his own sureties of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year before the court below under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Sukar Mandal "Bhaisur" of the informant on 30.05.1999 at about 8 A.M. asked her husband Sanichar Mandal that one of his trees has been cut-down by somebody and he suspects that he might have done so. Upon this, her husband replied as to why he will cut- down his tree, but accused Sukar Mandal started abusing and threatened that if he does not tell truth he will be killed and during altercation between two brothers her nephew Arjun Mandal, Basudeo Mandal and Nakul Mandal variously armed with Lathi arrived and started abusing and assaulting her husband. Upon seeing her husband being assaulted she tried to save him and upon which, the accused persons also assaulted her by Lathi, due to which she sustained head injury and blood started oozing out and all three of them also assaulted her by Lathi on her right wrist, left shoulder, legs and back.

3. At the outset, Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. However, she is not pressing the appeal on merit as more than 25 years have passed from the date of occurrence and the appellants and the informant are Gotia and closed relatives and hence, lenient view may be taken in favour of the appellants.

It is further submitted that she is not pressing the appeal on behalf of the Appellant No.4-Sukar Mandal. It is further submitted that the appellants are also ready to compensate the informant by paying reasonable compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the informant is a lady and her right hand was

fractured and she sustained head injury and hence necessary order may be passed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it reveals that the informant-Puniya Devi had lodged FIR against the appellants on 31.05.1999 for the offences under Sections 341/ 323/307/504/325/34 of the IPC for the occurrence taking place on 30.05.1999 at around 8.00 A.M in the morning.

6. It transpires that the police, after completing investigation, had submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 04.09.1999 before the learned S.D.J.M (in-charge), Madhupur for the offence under Sections 341/323/325/504/307/354/34 of the IPC and thereafter the learned S.D.J.M had taken cognizance against the appellants under Sections 341/323/325/504/307/354/34 of the IPC on 06.09.1999.

7. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

8. The charges were framed against the appellants on 15.09.2000 by Sri Govind Prasad Srivastava, then learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Deoghar under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34, 307/34 and 504/34 of the IPC and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution in support of its case, got examined nine (09) witnesses, who are as follows:

(i) P.W-1 is Sahdeo Mandal,

(ii) P.W-2 is Sahdeo Thakur,

(iii) P.W-3 is Sanichar Mandal,

(iv) P.W-4 is Lalu Mahto,

(v) P.W-5 is Somar Mahto,

(vi) P.W-6 is Raju Thakur,

(vii) P.W-7 is Puniya Devi i.e. the informant,

(viii) P.W-8 is Dr. Bishwanath Das i.e. the Doctor and

(ix) P.W-9 is Shivsankar Prasad i.e. the I.O.

10. The prosecution has got marked the following documents in support of its case, which are as follows:-

(i) Exhibit-1 is the requisition of injury report of informant-Puniya Devi,

(ii) Exhibit-1/1 requisition of injury report of Sanichar Mandal,

(iii) Exhibit-2 is the endorsement on FIR and

(iv) Exhibit-2/1 is Formal FIR.

(v) Exhibit-3 and 3/1 are requisitions of I.O to the Doctor.

11. Thereafter the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 03.11.2003 and to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them.

12. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the behalf of the defence side.

13. Thereafter the learned Court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence on different counts as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal.

14. It transpires that P.W-1 namely Sahdeo Mandal, P.W-2 namely Sahdeo Thakur and P.W-6 namely Raju Thakur have been declared hostile by the prosecution and as such their evidence are not relevant.

15. P.W-4-Lalu Mahto and P.W-5-Somar Mahto are the hearsay witness. However, they have supported the prosecution case to the extent of sustaining injury by the informant and they had seen that the right hand of the informant was fractured but they had not named the appellants for causing any overt act.

16. P.W-8 is Dr. Bishwanath Das, who has examined the informant Puniya Devi and found the following injuries on her person as follows:-

"(i) Acute tenderness with massive swelling over distal part of the right forearm. Movements are restricted. X-

ray shows the fracture over distal part of shaft of right ulna bone vide X-ray Plate no.nill, Rahul X-ray clinic Thana Road, Madhupur dt. 31st May, 1999.

(ii) Lacerated wound 2" x ¼" into muscle deep red in colour, posteriorly on left side perital region of scalp. One inch away from A.P. Mid-line.

(iii) Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" x muscle deep red in colour transversely placed posteriorly on right perital bone of scalp. 1 and ½" away from A.P. Mid-line.

(iv) Acute tenderness over chest."

Opinion-Injury no.(i) is grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as Lathi. Injury nos.(ii),

(iii) and (iv) are simple in nature caused with hard and blunt substance. Age of injury is assessed to be within 30 hours.

On the same day, the Doctor examined Sanichar Mandal (i.e. P.W-3) and found the following injuries on his person:-

"(i) Bruise 4" x 1" red in colour with acute tenderness over left side of loin,

(ii) Multiple abrasion marked over left side of back with tenderness,

(iii) Acute tenderness and swelling on posterior part of left leg and

(iv) Acute tenderness on right shoulder."

Opinion-All above injuries are simple in nature caused with hard and blunt substance such as Lathi.

Age of injury is assessed to within 30 hours. He has proved the injury report of the injured persons marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively. However, the Court below while signing the injury report has marked it differently as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 due to laches on the part of the office clerk concerned.

17. So far as evidence of P.W-3-Sanichar Mandal is concerned, it would appear that he also supported the prosecution case by saying that he was assaulted by Sukar Mandal by Lathi and when his wife tried to save then she was assaulted by all the appellants namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal, Basudeo Mandal and Sukar Mandal, due to which her right hand was fractured and she sustained further injury on her body and had become unconscious. Thereafter he had gone to

Police Station and from where he was sent to the Hospital and fardbeyan of his wife was recorded.

During cross-examination, he stated that he had also sustained 3-4 Lathi blow but he could not say as to how may lathi blow was sustained by his wife as he had fled away to save his wife after being assaulted by the appellants.

Thus, P.W-3 has also supported the prosecution case on the point of injury sustained by himself and his wife.

18. P.W-7 is the informant-Puniya Devi, who has stated that an altercation took place on the point of cutting tree by her Bhaisur Sukar Mandal and when her husband protested and stated that they have not cut the tree then both of them were assaulted by the appellants and her hand was broken due to blow given by Nakul Mandal-Appellant No.2 whereas Arjun Mandal- Appellant No.1 had also assaulted on her shoulder and leg and her Bhaisur (i.e. Sukar Mandal) exhorted to kill her. She was also assaulted by her Bhaisur when she had fell down. Thereafter they had gone to the Police Station and she was treated by Doctor.

During cross-examination, she admitted that she had not tried to flee away and she sustained injury while she was standing and thereafter she had gone to Madhupur Police Station. She further stated that Nakul Mandal had assaulted her in the wrist of right hand due to which her right hand was fractured.

19. Therefore, on perusal of injury report and evidence of P.W-7 and P.W-8, it would appear that she had sustained fracture on her right hand.

20. P.W-9 is Shivshankar Prasad who is the I.O of this case and has stated about the institution of the FIR and for getting the

injured person examined by the Doctor and he proved the endorsement on FIR as well as formal FIR marked as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2/1 respectively.

During cross-examination, he stated that he had not seized any blood from the earth and none of the injured had given the blood stained cloth.

21. Although the investigation of the I.O. is not so proper but he has supported the prosecution case on the point of injury sustained by the informant.

22. However, during course of trial, the X-ray Plates and the opinion of Doctor on X-ray report had not been brought on record.

23. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal is altered from Section 325 IPC to Section 324 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that more than 25 years have passed and as such they can be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

24. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which reads as under:-

"4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. - (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his

surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

(4) The Court making a supervision order under sub-

section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

25. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are directed to be released giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and as such the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to be released on execution of bond of Rs.5,000/- for a period of one year before the learned court below and they are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) to the informant-Puniya Devi within a period of eight (08) weeks from today in the Court of Sri Nalin Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar/ or his Successor Court..

The Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are further directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon for a period of one year and in the meantime, the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are directed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

26. It further reveals that learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed the instant appeal on behalf of Appellant No.4 as he has already furnished the probation bond for a period of one year.

27. Thus, this appeal is dismissed so far as Respondent no.4 is concerned.

28. The Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are directed to deposit Rs.20,000/ (Rs.Twenty Thousand) one lump sum before the Court of Sri Nalin Kumar, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar/or his Successor Court and the same may be disbursed by the Successor Court of Sri Nalin Kumar to the informant-Puniya Devi by informing her through the process of Court as well as D.L.S.A, Deoghar and deputing the P.L.V of the concerned area.

29. Thus, this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.271 of 2004 is allowed in part with the observation as mentioned above.

30. Let the L.C.R along with the copy of this judgment be sent back before the Court of Sri Nalin Kumar, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar/or his Successor Court and also to learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar at once for its compliance.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-