Jharkhand High Court
Charak Mahto Son Of Late Ganesh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:27261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.50 OF 2007
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 151 OF 2007
----
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 12th
December, 2006 and Order of Sentence dated
21st December, 2006 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,
Giridih in Sessions Trial No.324 of 2004 arising
out of Birni P.S. Case No.85 of 2003]
----
In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.50 of 2007
1. Charak Mahto son of Late Ganesh Mahto
2. Binay Yadav son of Shri Tijan Mahto
Both are resident of Bhatudih, P.S. Birni, District Giridih.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.151 of 2007
1. Tijan Mahto, son of Mahadeo Mahto
2. Baidnath Mahto @ Baijnath Mahto son of Barku Mahto,
3. Sukhdev Mahto, son of Late Shyamlal Mahto
4. Mahendra Mahto, son of Tijan Mahto
All residents of Village Bhatudih, P.S.Birni, District- Giridih.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
----
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Appellants: Mr. Abhinash Kumar., Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, APP
Ms. Vandana Bharati, APP
----
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON 15.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 09.09.2025
These Criminal Appeals arise out of a common Judgment of
Conviction dated 12th December, 2006 and Order of Sentence dated 21st
December, 2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.324 of 2004 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Giridih by which appellants
have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 326 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have
been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence
under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for six
months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326 of
2025:JHHC:27261
the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No
separate sentence has been awarded for offence under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of Jahimuddin Ansari
is that on 22.11.2003, at around 9:00 A.M., he, his father Ramjan Mian, and
his mother Soohra Khatoon were harvesting paddy in their field when a group
of men from the same village suddenly attacked them. They were armed with
lathi, sword, farsa. Jahimuddin and his father were badly assaulted and his
father became unconscious. His mother was also assaulted with lathi. The
fight started because the accused claimed title over the land, while informant's
family also claimed title. During the assault, the attackers also looted
valuables like a silver necklace, a gold earring and a Titan watch.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
case. He further submits that the statements given by prosecution witnesses
are contradictory to each other. P.W. 4 has turned hostile who stated that he
does not know anything about the occurrence. P.W. 6 in his statement has
mentioned that no Panchayati was ever held for the land dispute. It is their
case that the land belongs to the appellants and the informant forcibly tried to
dispossess them. There is genuine land dispute also.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants,
forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, attacked the
informant and his family members. He further submits that the oral and
documentary evidence presented clearly proves the charges against all the
accused. He further submits that the doctor's testimony supports the charges.
Statement of Doctor who is P.W. 9 clearly shows that the injury sustained is
grievous in nature.
5. Altogether eleven prosecution witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution were examined, namely, P.W. 1 Md. Jamal Ansari, P.W. 2
Soghara Khatoon, P.W. 3 Manir Mian, P.W. 4 Samsuddin Ansari, P.W. 5 Md.
Yaseen, P.W. 6 Md. Jahimuddin Ansari (Informant), P.W. 7 Sakila Khatoon,
P.W. 8 Ramzan Mian, P.W. 9 Dr. Ruben Hembrum, P.W. 10 Suryadev
Paswan and P.W. 11 Khurshid Anwar.
P.W. 1 Md. Jamal Ansari is an eyewitness to the occurrence. He
states that the accused persons reached the field where informant and his
parents were working. The accused started assaulting them with lathi, sword
and spear. Due to assault the hand of Ramjan Mian was broken. They also
2025:JHHC:27261
assaulted informant and his mother. After assault villagers came there
running.
P.W. 2 Soghara Khatoon is the wife of P.W. 8 Ramzan Mian and
mother of P.W. 6 Md. Jahimuddin Ansari. She stated on the same line as that
of P.W.6 and P.W.8 during her examination-in-chief. She stated her son was
attacked first, then she was assaulted, and finally her husband was attacked
and he became unconscious. She stated that her husband's thumb was cut,
his leg was damaged, and there were around 10 injuries and bleeding
wounds. She stated that Baidnath Mahto and Tijan Mahto hit her husband with
a sword causing injury in her husband's hand.
P.W.3 Manir Mian is the son of Ramjan Mian (PW 8). He stated
that he was present at the place when the incident happened. He has stated
on the same line as that of P.W.6 and P.W.8 during his examination-in-chief.
He stated that his brother Jahimuddin Ansari was attacked first, then his
mother, and then his father. After that, the accused ran away. He mentioned
that his father was bleeding from wounds and was admitted to Giridih Sadar
Hospital.
P.W.4 Samsuddin Ansari was declared as hostile.
P.W.5 Md. Yaseen is an independent witness who was
harvesting paddy in his field at the time of the incident. He has corroborated
the statements of P.W.2, P.W.6, and P.W.8 during his examination-in-chief.
He said his field was about 50 feet south of the place of occurrence.
P.W.6 Md. Jahimuddin Ansari is the informant of this case. He
stated that the occurrence occurred on 22.11.2003 at 09:00 A.M. He alongwith
his father Ramjan Mian, mother Soghra Khatoon, wife Sakila Khatoon and
brother Manir Ansari were cutting paddy crop. Meanwhile, the appellants
arrived there armed with sword, spear, dagger and lathi. Further he stated that
just-after arrival they started assaulting him, his mother and then they fled
away. Thereafter Tijan and Baidnath gave sword blow to his father which
caused cut injury in his right thumb and second sword blow due to which his
right elbow was cut. In cross examination he gave details of the land.
P.W. 7 Sakila Khatoon is the wife of the informant. During
examination-in-chief she stated regarding her presence in the paddy field
along with her mother-in-law Sogra Khatoon (P.W.2), husband (P.W.6),
brother-in-law Manir Mian (P.W.3), and father-in-law Ramjan Mian (P.W.8)
during the incident. She stated that the accused came to the field and hit her
mother-in-law and husband with a lathi. Tijan Mahto assaulted her father-in-
2025:JHHC:27261
law with a sword, cutting his right thumb and injuring his right elbow. She also
mentioned that Baidnath Mahto took part in the assault. In cross-examination,
she stated that she cannot say that how many stick blows were inflicted on her
mother-in-law. She herself sustained 4-5 lathi blows on her right thigh and
back and her father-in-law was hit twice with a sword on his right hand. Her
husband also sustained 4-5 lathi injuries.
P.W.8 Ramzan Mian is the main victim of this case and stated
that during his examination-in-chief that incident happened about 2 years 14
days ago from his deposition (i.e., 06.12.2005). He alongwith his son
Jahimuddin, Manir, wife Sogra Khatoon, daughter-in-law Sakila Khatoon were
harvesting paddy crop and suddenly Tijan Mahto, Mahadev Mahto, Tuli
Mahto, Baidnath Mahto, Charku Mahto, Ramu Mahto, Narayan Mahto, Suresh
Mahto arrived there and amongst them Tijan Mahto and Baijnath Mahto were
armed with sword. Sukhdev was holding spear and Mahendra was holding a
'Dabia' and remaining persons were holding lathi in their hand. He further
stated that just after they started to abuse them and Jahimuddin was
surrounded by Mahadev, Charak, Binay and they assaulted him and Sogra
Khatoon by means of lathi. He further states that Tijan Mahto gave a sword
blow on his neck which he tried to hold by which he sustained cut injury near
the elbow of his right hand. His hand was hanging and was bleeding. During
cross-examination he stated that the accused tried to take his land because
they thought he was weak. He also gave details about the land's boundaries.
He stated that he lost consciousness at the attack site and gained sense two
days later in the hospital.
P.W.9 Dr. Ruben Hembrum is the doctor who examined P.W.8,
Ramjan Mian, at Sadar Hospital, Giridih, and prepared the injury report which
is in Exhibit 2 Series. He found the following injuries on Ramjan-
i. Incised wound between thumb and index finger about
4"x3"x bone deep
ii. Punctured wound lower 1/3rd fore-arm about 2"x2"x
bone deep on right hand and fore-arm.
iii. Three fractured wound one on ulna, second on radius
and alna left fore-arm, third on right leg lower 1/3rd of
tibia and fabula.
According to the doctor these injuries were grievous in nature.
The first injury was caused by a sharp weapon, and the other injuries by hard
blunt substance.
2025:JHHC:27261
On the same day, he also examined Jahimuddin and Sogra
Khatoon, who complained of body pain. Their injuries were found to be simple
and caused by hard and blunt objects.
P.W.10 Suryadev Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the
case. He described the boundaries of the places of occurrence. He stated that
he visited the spot on 25.11.03 and found the paddy had already been
harvested. He confirmed there is a police outpost at Bharkatta, but no officer
was posted there at the time. A government hospital is located at Bharkatta,
but he could not confirm if a doctor was present. He also verified the earlier
statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.8 recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P.W.11 Khurshid Anwar is a formal witness. He produced a
Hukumnama dated 28.05.1945, marked as Exhibit 6, admitted under Section
90 of the Evidence Act, a registered sale deed No. 2107 dated 11.03.1992,
marked as Exhibit 7 and Two rent receipts, marked as Exhibits 8 and 8/1.
During cross-examination he stated that the person who has issued Ext.8 and
8/1 is alive and in service.
6. The prosecution had produced the following documents which
were marked as exhibits-
Exhibit 1- Signature of informant in Fardbeyan
Exhibit 1/1- Fardbeyan
Exhibit 2- Injury Report of Ramzan Mian
Exhibit 2/1- Injury Report of Jahimuddin
Exhibit 2/2- Injury Report of Sogra Khatoon
Exhibit 3- Discharge slip of Ramzan Mian
Exhibit 4- Formal FIR
Exhibit 5- Injury Report of Sogra Khatoon
Exhibit 5/1- Injury Report of JahimuddinAnsari
Exhibit 5/2- Injury Report of Ramzan Mian
Exhibit 6- Hukum Nama
Exhibit 7- Sale deed
Exhibit 8- Rent Receipt No. 570611
Exhibit 8/1- Rent Receipt No. 9182364
Exhibit 9- C.C of deposition of P.W. 1 Mahadev Mahto of
G.R 217303
Exhibit 10- C.C of Register 2 of Mouja Bhatudih
2025:JHHC:27261
7. Defence also examined three witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Dashrath
Tiwari, D.W.2 Surya Narayan Ram and D.W.3 Hemraj Tiwari. All these defece
witnesses are formal witnesses, who presented documents as evidence.
D.W.1 Dashrath Tiwari stated that both the parties along with the
Panch made their signatures in front of him in the Ikrarnama. He further stated
that, no decision could be taken on the day when agreement was signed. Both
the parties were ready for Panchayat. He further stated that he knows Ramjan
Mian and that the thumb of right hand of Ramjan Mian was cut on the
Panchayat Day as well.
D.W.2 Surya Narayan Ram stated that he is the Advocate Clerk
and that the decree has been given to Tijan Mahto by land owner Tulsi
Narayan Singh and that the receipts have not been issued in front of him. He
further states that, he personally has no information about the land.
D.W.3 Hemraj Tiwari stated that Tijan Mahto gave him three
Land Revenue Receipts for filing which he filed and he doesn't know about the
receipts and from where did it was produced.
8. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants for committing
offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 326 of the Indian Penal Code read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 148 of the
Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for
seven years for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. All
the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No separate sentence has
been awarded for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. To consider and appreciate the arguments of the parties, I have
gone through the materials available on record.
10. In this case, the conviction is under Sections 148, 141, 323 and
326 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the conviction is with the aid of Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is a
punishment for rioting while armed with deadly weapons. Rioting is defined
under Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:-
146. Rioting. - Whenever force or violence is used by
an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
every member of such assembly is guilty of the
offence of rioting.
2025:JHHC:27261
From the aforesaid provision of law, the basic ingredients to
complete an offence of rioting is use of force by violence; said force and
violence should be at the behest of an unlawful assembly or a member
thereof. The said use of force or assembly should be in prosecution of some
common object of that assembly.
11. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is punishment for wrongful
restrain. "Wrongful restrain" is defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal
Code, which reads as follows: -
339. Wrongful restrain. - Whoever voluntarily
obstructs any person so as to prevent that person
from proceeding in any direction in which that person
has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain
that person.
Exception. - The obstruction of a private way over
land or water which a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an
offence within the meaning of this section.
As per the aforesaid provision, the ingredients of the offence is
that a person should voluntarily restrain any person from proceeding to any
direction, which that person has right to proceed.
12. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the punishment
for voluntarily causing hurt. "Voluntarily causing hurt" is defined in Section 321
of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: -
"321. Voluntarily causing hurt. - Whoever does any
act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any
person, or with the knowledge that he is likely
thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does
thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily
to cause hurt"."
13. Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code defines offence of
voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, which
reads as under: -
"326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means. - Whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes
grievous hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death, or by means of fire or any heated substance,
2025:JHHC:27261
or by means of any poison or any corrosive
substance, or by means of any explosive substance,
or by means of any substance which it is deleterious
to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive
into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
14. Further, with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also
the appellants have been punished. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
reads as under:-
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly, or such as the members of
that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the
time of the committing of that offence, is a member of
the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Classification of offence. - The offence under
this section, according as offence is cognizable or
non-cognizable and according as offence is bailable
or non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by
Court by which the offence is triable.
15. Now, it is to be seen whether the evidence led by the prosecution
has proved the ingredients of the charge of the offence under the aforesaid
Sections of the Indian Penal Code, which has been framed against these
appellants. As per the prosecution case, the informant, along with family
members were harvesting paddy when the accused persons attacked them.
Accused persons were armed with lathi, sword, farsa. They assaulted the
informant, his father, as a result of which informant's father became
unconscious. Mother of the informant was also assaulted with sticks. In the
First Information Report it has also been mentioned that this fight took place
because the accused claimed title over the land in question and informant
family also claimed title. As per the First Information Report, attackers looted
valuable articles, viz. Silver necklace, gold earring and a watch.
2025:JHHC:27261
16. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention herein that the
conviction is not under a Section of Indian Penal Code, which punishes
offence of theft.
17. Further, from the First Information Report itself, the fact which is
admitted in the fardbeyan is that there is a land dispute between the parties.
P.W.11 Khurshid Anwar has produced Hukumnama dated 28.08.1945, a
registered sale deed No.2107 dated 11.03.1992. The said document is also
marked as Exhibit 7. Rent receipts were also produced. By virtue of these
documents, the accused persons tried to establish ownership / title over the
land in question, which is the place of occurrence. Similarly, the defence
witness, D.W.3 also stated about land revenue receipts in support of the
contention of the defence that the land belong to them. The statement of
D.W.2 is also in support of the defence in respect of ownership of the land.
D.W.1 Dashrath Tiwari also stated that there was an agreement and there
was a Panchayati in respect of the land in question. These facts also prove
that there was genuine land dispute between the parties and both the parties
were claiming title over the land in question.
18. The definition of "wrongful restraint" has already been mentioned
above. There is an exception to the said provision. The exception provides
that if there is an obstruction of private way over land or water which a person
in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct someone, then
such obstruction will not come within the scope of "wrongful restraint". In this
case, informant family were harvesting the paddy when the accused came
and it is alleged that they assaulted and they were restrained by the accused.
From the evidence it is clear that both the parties genuinely claimed title over
the land. Accused were of definite belief that they were lawful owners of the
land in question, thus, the aforesaid offence of "wrongful restraint" in view of
the exception to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code will not be applied in
the instant case. Once I come to the finding that Section 339 of the Indian
Penal Code, i.e., ingredients of "wrongful restraint" is not applicable,
conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code against these
appellants cannot be sustained.
19. Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned earlier is a
punishment for rioting armed with deadly weapon. As mentioned earlier, to
bring home the charge of rioting, there has to be unlawful assembly coupled
with force or violence in prosecution of common object. "Unlawful assembly" is
defined in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 141 reads as under:-
2025:JHHC:27261
"141. Unlawful assembly. - An assembly of five or
more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly",
if the common object of the persons composing that
assembly is -
First. - To overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, the Central or any State Government
or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any
public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of
such public servant; or
Second. - To resist the execution of any law, or of
any legal process; or
Third. - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass,
or other offence; or
Fourth. - By means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
possession of any property, or to deprive any person
of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of
water or other incorporeal right of which he is in
possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or
supposed right; or
Fifth. - By means of criminal force or show of
criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is
not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is
legally entitled to do.
Explanation. - An assembly which was not unlawful
when it assembled may subsequently become an
unlawful assembly.
20. As noted above, from the evidence led by the parties, it is a clear
case that there was property dispute amongst the parties. A Panchayati was
held and both the parties had produced documents in support of their claim for
title over the land. It is the case of the defence that the informant party were
harvesting paddy and the land belongs to them. Thus, seeing them harvesting
the paddy, the accused persons with arms went there to forbade them, when
the assault took place. It is the case of the defence that they were trying to
protect the property and in order to protect the property this assault had taken
place. Admittedly a force has been used, but it is not to take possession of
any property or deprive any person from possession, as envisaged in the
fourth clause to Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code nor the fifth. The third
clause will also not be applicable because from considering the fact that it was
the accused who believing that land belong to them, they assaulted the
informant and family, who were harvesting the paddy. It cannot also be said
2025:JHHC:27261
that there was any intention to commit criminal trespass as the appellants
were genuinely believing the land to be theirs. Thus, assembly of these
appellants cannot be said to be unlawful. Once I hold that assembly was not
unlawful as because they were trying to protect their property, it cannot be
said that they were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 of the
Indian Penal Code.
21. Section 323 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code are
punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt
by dangerous weapon. In support of the aforesaid, to prove the charge,
prosecution has examined the doctor and other witnesses. The doctor is
P.W.9, who stated that he found incised wound between thumb and index
finger. P.W.8 Ramjan Mian is the main victim of this case. He also supported
the aforesaid fact. P.W.8 being injured witness, his statement needs to be
kept at highest pedestal. There is nothing in the statement of P.W.8 to show
that he is making false statement on the factum of assault. Thus, I come to the
conclusion that there was assault upon him. As far as his statement that Tijan,
Mahadeo and Baijnath Mahto were armed with sword, Sukhdeo and Mahindra
with Dabia and other accused were armed with lathi, I find that there is a
specific statement that Tijan gave a sword blow causing incised wound and
also on his forearm. So far as assault by others, the doctor found simple
injuries caused by blunt substance, i.e., body pain etc. P.W.2, who is the wife
of P.W.8 also took the name of Baijnath Mahto alongwith Teejan, who had
assaulted her husband with sharp weapon. P.W.6 also stated involvement of
Teejan and Baijnath. Thus, involvement of Teejan and Baijnath and their
participation in the assault is proved by the medical evidence and ocular
evidence also. Thus, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the
charge under Section 326 against these two appellants. Further, prosecution
witnesses have also consistently stated that other appellants have also
assaulted by lathi and doctor has proved the injuries. Thus, the charge under
Section 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands proved.
22. So far as offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, I have held that assembly cannot be said to be unlawful as they
were under belief that the property belongs to them, thus Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code is also not applicable in the instant case in absence of
ingredients of unlawful assembly.
23. Even after holding above, I find that offence under Sections 323
and 326 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as the appellants have
2025:JHHC:27261
exceeded their right to protect their property. They were armed with weapons
and had assaulted the informant. Assault is also supported by ocular and
medical evidence and injuries are grievous on P.W.8. There is nothing in
evidence to suggest that the informant party was also armed with deadly
weapon nor there is any evidence of injury upon them. Thus, as held above,
offence under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
24. So far as place of occurrence is concerned, it is paddy field.
Investigating Officer has proved the same and also stated that paddy had
already been harvested when he had visited the place of occurrence. Thus,
the occurrence had taken place after harvesting the paddy is also proved and
the place of occurrence is the land where the paddy was being harvested is
also proved, which both the parties claims to be theirs.
25. The Trial Court has sentenced the appellants for committing
offence under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 6
months and 7 years rigorous imprisonment respectively.
26. The allegation against each of the appellants is specific. It is Tijan
Mahto and Baidnath Mahto @ Baijnath Mahto, who had assaulted the
informant with sharp arms. Thus, their conviction under Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code is upheld. So far as the other remaining appellant-accused
are concerned, they have assaulted with sticks and the injuries upon the
injured as a result of their assault is simple. Thus, the other remaining
appellant-accused, namely, Charak Mahto, Binay Yadav, Sukhdev Mahto and
Mahendra Mahto are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code.
27. Thus, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the
charge of commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused-appellants, namely, Charak Mahto, Binay Yadav,
Sukhdev Mahto and Mahendra Mahto and under Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused-appellant, namely, Tijan Mahto and Baidnath
Mahto @ Baijnath Mahto, hence the same are upheld whereas conviction for
offences under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.
28. So far as sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, I find
that the occurrence had taken place in November 2003, i.e., more than 21
years have lapsed from the date of occurrence and even one of the
appellants, namely, Mahadeo Mahto, died on 31.01.2012 during pendency of
the appeal, whose name was deleted. Appellants have suffered the rigors of
2025:JHHC:27261
trial and these appeals for more than 21 years, thus, their sentence also
needs to be considered.
29. Considering the facts of the case and the age of the appellants, I
am inclined to modify the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Appellants,
namely, Tijan Mahto and Baidnath Mahto @ Baijnath Mahto are sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 326
of the Indian Penal Code and accused-appellants, namely, Charak Mahto,
Sukhdev Mahto and Mahendra Mahto are sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code. The period, which they have already spent in custody should be
set off. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to
surrender before the Trial Court concerned forthwith to serve the remaining
sentence.
30. Both these appeals are, thus, dismissed with the modification in
conviction and sentence to the extent as indicated hereinbefore. Pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
31. Let the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Trial Court concerned.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 9th September, 2025
NAFR/ Kumar/Cp-03
