Jharkhand High Court
Lakhi Ram Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025
Cr.A. (SJ).No. 479 of 2007
------
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2007 and order of sentence
dated 28.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV,
Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2004]
Lakhi Ram Mahto, son of Late Trilocan Mahto, R/o Village
Bahadurpur, P.S. Chandankyari, District-Bokaro.
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
: Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Spl.PP
------
Dated: 17.01.2025
By Court: Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 27.02.2007 and order of sentence dated
28.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2004,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
five years.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal is that on 22.05.2004
the informant had gone to Murlidih in the marriage of his
niece and when he returned from the marriage, then his wife
Almani Devi told him that Lakhi Ram Mahato, resident of
Bahadurpur, P.S. Barmasiya, who lived with and worked in
the crop field of Mukteshwar Mahato, committed rape on
22.05.2004 at 1:00 PM with the daughter of the informant,
who is dumb and aged about 19 years. Lakhi Ram Mahato
forcibly laid down informant's daughter on the ground and
Page | 1
inserted cloth in her mouth and then committed rape on her.
When the wife of the informant heard the cry of her daughter,
who was at that time on the other side of the house came and
gave one brick assault on the back of the accused, then Lakhi
Ram Mahato ran away from the house, which was seen by
many persons. The informant had filed one case against
Bhuneshwar Mahato and Sunil Mahato, in which they had
gone to jail. Lakhi Ram Mahato lived in the house of
Gupteshwar Mahato, Sunil Mahato and Thakur Mahato of
village Simuliya and on their instigation, Lakhi Ram had
committed this offence. When the informant returned from
the marriage, then he came to know about the incident of
rape and also his daughter narrated him through sign that she
has been raped.
4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. being
Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 60 of 2004 was instituted for
the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the
police for the offence under section 376 I.P.C and the learned
CJM took cognizance of the offence on 12.07.2004 and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and
disposal where the charge under section 376 IPC was framed
and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against
accused, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution has
adduced following documentary evidences:-
Exhibit-1 : Written Report.
Page | 2
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report.
Exhibit-3 and 3/1 : Pathological Report of Victim
7. After completion of trial, the learned trial court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the
merits of the judgment has confined his argument to the
quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence
under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and submits
that during trial and post-conviction, appellant has undergone
about three years in custody and has sufficiently being punished
for the offence committed by him, therefore sentence awarded
to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already
undergone.
9. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned
judgment of conviction of the appellant on merits, however in
the matter of sentence, he has raised no serious objection.
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions
raised on behalf of both side.
11. It appears that in course of trial, altogether eight witnesses
were examined by the prosecution including the victim (PW-8).
The allegation against the appellant has been found
substantiated through cogent and reliable evidence available on
record. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant
under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. requires no interference by
way of this appeal.
12. It is also apparent that the appellant has remained in
custody for about three years during course of trial and after
conviction, he has remained in custody for five years.
Page | 3
Therefore the appellant has substantially undergone the
sentence awarded to him.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and nature of offence committed by the appellant, it appears that
for the ends of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by
the appellant appears to be sufficient punishment in this case.
14. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the
impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld, but
the sentence passed by the learned trial Court is reduced to
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during trial of
the case.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence as stated above.
16. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of
bail bonds, sureties shall also be discharged.
17. Pending IA's if any stands disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent to the trial court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 17.01.2025
Abha/NAFR
Page | 4
