Jharkhand High Court
Krishan Chandra Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.775 of 2017
....
1. Krishan Chandra Mahato, Son of Lakhi Ram Sao,
2. Dilip Kumar, Son of Krishan Chandra Mahto,
3. Nepal Mahato, Son of Guhee Ram Mahto,
4. Din Bandhu Rajwar, Son of Late Raghunath Rajwar,
5. Gopal Mahato, Son of Guhee Ram Mahato.
All residents of Kheshmi, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Tundi,
District-Dhanbad
6. Partham Singh, Son of Late Katku Singh, resident of Churiya
Tand, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Tundi, District-Dhanbad
......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P
Mr. Shaildra Jit, Advocate
......
ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT
Order No.11/27.01.2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioners by challenging the judgment dated
22.05.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2016 passed by Sri
Dhananjay Kumar, District and Additional Sessions Judge- XVI by
which criminal appeal filed by petitioners has been dismissed
thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated10.03.2013 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Guria,
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 2626 of
2010 corresponding to T.R. No.138 of 2016 arising out of Tundi
P.S. Case No.52 (53 mention in FIR) of 2010 by which the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section
148,323,341,342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo for S.I. for one year and pay the fine of Rs.500/- each
under Section 148 of IPC, S.I. for one month under Section 341 of
IPC, S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 342 of IPC
and S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC
and 15 days S.I. simple imprisonment in default of fine.
However, all the sentences have been run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.07.2010 near
about 8.30 while the appellant Anil Ram Mahato and his family
members were having dinner at that time accused persons came to
their house who were armed with deadly weapons and started
hurling abuses and assaulted them with lathi and danda and were
holding pistol and when other people came, they somehow rescued
and took them to hospital wherein they were treated. The quarrel
happened because one Tudu Devi had filed a case and informant
has deposed as a witness in that case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts
below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is
submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence of prosecution witness and failed to refer material
contradictory in their evidence.
It is submitted alternatively by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners have remained in custody for more
than three (03) months and the occurrence is fifteen (15) year old
and hence lenient view may be taken in favour of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P raised no objection.
5. Perusal of lower Court records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
6. It transpires that the informant had lodged the FIR against
the petitioners for the offence under Sections
147,148,149,323,324,307 and 458 of IPC on 01.08.2010 giving
rise to Tundi P.S. Case No.52 of 2010 (53 mentioned in FIR).
7. The police, after investigation, had submitted the
chargesheet against the petitioners under Section
147,148,149,341,323.324,504 and 502 of I.P.C before learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.10.2010. Thereafter, the learned
CJM had taken cognizance under Section
147,148,341,342,323,324,452, and 504 of I.P.C against the
petitioners on 26.10.2010 .
8. After supplying the police papers to the accused person,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
9. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the petitioners
by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Dhanbad under Section
147, 148,149,323 of 149, 341/149, 342/149, 324/149, 452 and 504
of I.P.C. on 22.06.2011 which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
10. During trial of the prosecution got examined ten (10)
witnesses in support of its case, who are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 is Bhadia Devi,
(ii) PW-2 is Budhan Mahto,
(iii) PW-3 is Sakhi Lal Mahto,
(iv) PW-4 is Sukar Mahto,
(v) PW-5 is Sulochana Devi,
(vi) PW-6 is Chunduwa Devi @ Mundwa Devi,
(vii) PW-7 is Binod Mohali,
(viii) PW-8 is Anil Ram Mahto, (i.e. informant)
(ix) PW-9 is Prem Chandra Lal Das and
(x) PW-10 is Shyam Lal Mohali
11. The prosecution case in support of its case had marked
following Exhibits which are as follows:-
(i) Ext/-1 is Signature of witness namely Anil Ram Mahato,
(ii) Ext.-1/1 is Signature of Budhan Mahto on written report and
(iii) Ext-2 is injury report.
12. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 06.01.2016 by the Learned Court below
and to which the petitioners had denied the circumstances and put
forth before them.
13. The Defence in support of this case got examined one
witnesses namely Dev Narayan Singh marked as DW-1.
14. However, no document marked as Exhibit.
15. Thereafter, Sri A. K. Guria, J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad, has
convicted the petitioners as mentioned above and sentenced them
on different counts as mentioned above.
16. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court had dismissed the
Criminal Appeal, thereafter the Criminal Revision has been filed.
17. It transpires from perusal of the lower Court record that
both sides are relative and there are some previous cases pending
among them also.
18. It appears that I.O. of this case had not been examined and
place of occurrence had not been proved.
19. It appears from submission of parties that the petitioners
had remained in custody for around three months.
20. It appears that occurrence took place in the year 2010 and
more than 14 years have passed.
21. It transpires that both the sides are relatives and as such
lenient view may be taken.
22. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by Sri A.K. Guria, J.M, 1st Class Dhanbad
is hereby affirmed.
23. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Court is taking
lenient view and the petitioners are directed to be released on
admonition, and the trial court is directed to call upon the
petitioners on in the first week / 2nd Week of March, and they shall
appear before the Court of A.K. Guria, J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad or
his successor Court who shall pass the necessary order in this
regard.
24. Thus this Criminal Revision No.775 of 2017 is dismissed
with modification and sentence as mentioned above.
25. Let the original copy of the Lower Court records be sent
to learned Court below at once by the Office
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
