Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Nath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006
------
1. Dhirendra Nath Mahto, Son of Late Shibu Mahto.
2. Bamapado Mahato, Son of late Surendra Nath Mahto
3. Bhim Mahato, Son of Narendra Nath Mahto
4. Ujjawal Mahato, Son of Narendra Nath Mahto
5. Manik Chandra Mahato @ Manik Mahato, Son of Bamapdo
Mahato.
6. Nimai Chandra Mahato @ Nimai Mahto, Son of Gunadhar
Mahato.
All residents of village-Patharchur, P.S. Kundahit, District-Jamtara
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Mishra Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 10.01.2025
By Court:- Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The counter affidavit filed by the learned A.P.P. from which it is
clear that appellant no.1 Nagendra Nath Mahato has died on
14.12.2021. Hence, the appeal related to Nagendra Nath Mahato
stands abated. Accordingly, the serial numbers of the appellants
are renumbered in this judgment.
Factual Matrix
3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant
stating inter alia that in between 10:30 and 11.00 O' clock, when the
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006 Page | 1
informant was uprooting the seedling of paddy in his field and his
brother was also seeding at some distance. The accused persons by
forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon came
there and with intention to cause death of the informant, accused
Dhirendra Nath Mahato threw tangi on his neck. However in
order to save himself, he turned back due to which he fell down
and the tangi hit to his left leg. Other co-accused persons attacked
on him with lathi and also snatched the watch worth Rs.12,00/-.
Seeing this, the brother of the informant came there to help him,
but the accused persons assaulted him also by lathi and iron rod
causing injury to him.
4. On the basis of written report, Kundahit P.S. Case No. 72/96 was
registered against all the accused persons and charge-sheet was
submitted for the offences.
5. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial. The accused persons did not plead not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. In the court of trial, altogether ten witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses,
following documentary evidences has been adduced:-
Exhibit 1: Written report.
Exhibit 2 : Endorsement in written report.
Exhibit 3 : 04 Injury reports.
Exhibit 4 :Signature of Officer-in-charge in F.I.R.
Exhibit 5:- Jakham Pratibedan (Injury Report)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006 Page | 2
Exhibit 6:- C.C. of Parcha of Mouja Patharchur.
Exhibit 7:- C.C. of Judgment dated 12.09.2003 passed in P.C.R.
265/1996.
Exhibit 8:- C.C. of Order dated 01.08.1996 passed in Tr. 1274/96.
7. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and plea of
innocence and false implication in this case. However, no oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.
8. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of
the evidence available on record, held the appellants guilty.
Appellant No.1 (Dhirendra Nath Mahato) was held guilty for the
offence under Sections 148 and 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years for the each of the offences. Appellant
no.4 (Ujjawal Mahato) was held guilty for the offence under
Section 147, 323, 325, 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for one year for each of the offence under Sections
147 and 323 of the I.P.C. and 3 years for each of the offences under
Sections 325 and 379 of the I.P.C.. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 were
held guilty for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year in each sections with
default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of
the judgment has confined himself to the quantum of sentence
and submits that the dispute arose due to land dispute between
the parties and in this regard documentary evidences has also been
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006 Page | 3
adduced. It was the first offence of the appellants, but the learned
trial court has not taken into consideration and without recording
any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of Probation
Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order
of conviction and sentence is required interference by this Court.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
raised no serious objection as regard to aforesaid contentions
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants rather
defended the judgment on merits.
11. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned
judgment and order along with materials available on record.
12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the
offences for which the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent
and character of the appellants, I am of the considered view that
the trial court has failed to record any special reason for not
extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive
sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be
entitled.
13. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed
on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the
appellants are directed to be released under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing the bond of
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006 Page | 4
Rs.5,000/- with one surety instead of undergoing substantive
sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court,
with condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall
maintain peace for a period of one year from the date of furnishing
bond.
14. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned
trial court within three months from the date of this order and
furnish the bond as per direction of this Court.
15. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the District
Probation Officer. In case of violation of terms and conditions of
the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial
court to receive the sentence already awarded to them.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
17. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-10.01.2025
Amar/-
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1159 of 2006 Page | 5
