Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Mandal @ Arun Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2006
passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R Case No. 541 of 2002
by the court of Sri Anil Kumar Arya, learned Special Judge-cum-1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Godda, Jharkhand)
1.Arun Kumar Mandal @ Arun Mandal, son of Khirod Mandal
2.Hira Lal Mandal @ Hero Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal
3.Sidash Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal
4.Kamlesh Mandal @ Kamlesh Kr. Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal
All are resident of Bishanpur, P.S. Godda (M), District-Godda
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
JUDGMENT
04.03.2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of
2003 arising out of P.C.R Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of learned
Special Judge-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby and
where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and
3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year
with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a
period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989; R.I. for 1 year with
a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a
period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and S.I. for 3
months u/s 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, has informed that
the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal
and, therefore, it is prayed that the instant criminal appeal be abated with
respect to the deceased appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal and let his name
be deleted from the array of parties in the cause title of the memo of
appeal.
3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is present and filed
a counter affidavit on behalf of the State stating therein that the appellant
no.1 Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020 during pending of this
appeal and a detail report to that effect has also been received from the
Officer-in-Charge of the Godda (Muffasil) Police Station dated
22.09.2022, which is annexed as Annexure-A series to the instant
affidavit.
4. From perusal of the report (Annexure-A series) it is found that
appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal S/o Late Nathu Mandal resident of
Bishunpur, P.S. Godda, District - Godda has died and to that effect a
death certificate has been issued by the Mukhia of Ghat Manjwara Gram
Panchayat, Block and District-Godda by which it appears that the
appellant Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020. Rests of the appellants
are alive.
5. In view of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, since
the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal
and no close relatives or legal heirs have come forward to pursue the
appeal on behalf of the deceased appellant, this appeal is abated as
respect to the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal. Let his name be deleted
from the cause title of the memo of appeal and rest of the appellants be
renumbered.
6. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the complaint of the
complainant Hirday Mirdha being Complaint Case No. 541 of 2002,
stating therein as under:
On 08.09.2002 at about 9 P.M. the complainant heard hulla in the
house of brother Jagdeo Mirdha and approached there immediately and
saw that all the accused persons namely Khirod Mandal (since
deceased), Arun Mandal, Hero Mandal , Kamlesh Mandal and Sidash
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
Mandal were beating Jagdeo Mirdha and when the complainant asked
them about the cause of occurrence, he was surrounded by the accused
person and was assaulted by them by a „khanti' on his head and also by
„lathi'. It is further alleged that when the complainant‟s brother Sukhdeo
Mirdha, his mother Most. Tetri and niece Champa came to save his life,
then the accused Sidhash Mandal caught the hair of Champa Devi and
dragged her. The accused Arun Mandal called him "Sala Dom" saying
that his house will be set on fire and his whole family will be burnt to
ashes. Due to injury on the head, the complainant was bleeding and he
sustained injury near his eye also. It has further alleged that the accused
Arun Mandal with intention to kill them gave two blows of „Khanti‟.
The occurrence was witnessed by all the witnesses saving the life of the
complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station from
where he was referred to the Hospital by the Sub-Inspector. However,
since no action was taken by the police for lodging the F.I.R., he filed the
instant P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda.
7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda examined three witnesses
on S/A and thereafter took cognizance of the offence under Section
323/324/354 of the IPC and 3/4 of the SC/ST Act and lastly the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions cum Special Court on 12.03.2003.
Thereafter charges were framed against the accused persons by Learned
Spl. Judge Godda under section 323/324 IPC and under Section 3/4 of
the SC/ST Act, 1989. Later on, the charge under section 3(1)(x) and
3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been amended vide order dated
19.05.2006.
8. The defence in short was total denial of occurrence and false
implication.
9. The charges were read over and explained to the accused /
appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
10. The learned Trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
which is under challenge in this appeal.
11. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P.
for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:
12. Learned defence counsel, at the outset, has submitted that the
appellants do not want to argue this appeal on merit on the point of
judgment of conviction and, therefore, he is confining his arguments
only on the point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants
that appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST
Act 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine
of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of
7 days u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989; R.I. for 1 year with a fine of
Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7
days u/s 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act, 1989 and S.I. for 3 months u/s 323 IPC. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned defence
counsel has submitted that the offence has taken place as far back on
08.09.2002 and all the appellants have suffered the trauma and misery of
criminal prosecution for a long period of time. It has also been submitted
that there is nothing on record to show about criminal history of any of
the appellants. It is also submitted that no useful purpose would be
served by sending the appellants again to the jail and the appellants are
ready to pay any suitable fine as may be imposed by this Court by way
of compensation to be paid to the victim- P.W.5 (Hirday Mirdha) or his
legal heirs and therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellants to pass
appropriate order for awarding sentence of fine instead of sentence of
imprisonment.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
has submitted that when the appellants do not want to argue this case on
merit, then the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court
be upheld against the appellants and under the facts and circumstances, a
suitable order on the point of sentence may be passed.
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
Appraisal & Findings
14. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the Trial Court Record.
15. In order to prove its case, prosecution has been able to examine
altogether 7 witnesses who are as under:
1. P.W.1- Sukhdeo Mirdha
2. P.W.2-Jagdeo Mirdha
3. P.W.3 Chinta Mani Devi
4. P.W.4- Champa Devi
5. P.W.5-Hirday Mirdha
6. P.W.6-Bishnu Mirdha
7. P.W.7-Buddhinath Mirdha
16. Since the appellants do not want to argue this appeal in hand on
merit on the point of conviction and want to confine their prayer only on
the point of sentence, therefore, this Court upholds the judgment of
conviction 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out
of P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of learned Special Judge -
cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, Jharkhand.
17. So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the occurrence took
place as far back on 08.09.2002 and originally there were 5 appellants
and one of the appellants namely Khirod Mandal has died during
pending of this appeal. Further, it is also found that over period of time
all the appellants have reached their middle age and they have also
suffered the rigor of the criminal case. It is also found that there is no
criminal history against any of these appellants available on record.
18. Further, it is found that the doctor in this case has not been
examined and therefore, grievous assault or injury has not been proved
by the prosecution and the appellant has been convicted only for the
offence punishable under section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x)
and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act 1989 and in view of all these mitigating
factors it appears that no useful purpose would be served by imposing
the sentence of imprisonment upon the appellants and the ends of justice
would be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine instead
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
of imprisonment.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the order of sentence dated
29.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Godda in Special Case No. 6 of 2003 arising out of
P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 against the appellants is set aside and
altered under all the three heads/ counts in a composite manner as under:
A. All the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the
period already undergone by them.
B. All the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) by each of the appellant by way of
compensation to be given to the victim P.W.5. Hirday
Mirdha
20. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of 9 months
is given to each of the four appellants to pay the aforesaid fine and in
default of payment of fine, each of the appellant is directed to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The appellants may deposit the fine
amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give
it to the victim/injured P.W.-5 Complainant (Hirday Mirdha), by way of
compensation.
21. The learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that the said fine
amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same
is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as
awarded in case of default of payment of fine as said above by taking all
necessary measures as per the provisions of law.
22. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment
appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be discharged from the
liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.
23. The learned Trial Court is also directed that on deposit of the said
fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the victim P.W.-5
(Hirday Mirdha) and on his appearance the said fine amount, if so,
deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him. In case, the said
victim P.W.5 is not traceable or not available or not found at the given
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
address, or does not appear before the Court, the same shall be disbursed
to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim or else, as
the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this
regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer
(PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Godda, if required
and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Godda is directed to co-operate in this
regard.
24. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed with
modification in the order of sentence.
25. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also
transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and
spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 04.03.2025
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
