Jharkhand High Court
Sahdeo Mahra Son Of Gobar Mahra vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 23 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 JHA 1292
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1173 of 2013
1. Sahdeo Mahra son of Gobar Mahra
2. Bachu Mahra @ Bachu Das son of Late Kailu Mahra @
Peru Mehra (Deleted vide order dated 27.07.2021 due
to his death on 06.04.2014)
3. Anil Mahra @ Anil Das son of Late Gobar Mahra
All are residents of Village- Lakhanuwa, P.O. + P.S.-
Madhupur, District- Deoghar
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
11/23.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and also confirmed their sentences to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court reduced their sentence for offence under 2 Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code to Simple Imprisonment for three months only and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and partly allowed the criminal appeal. The learned appellate court held that Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable in the present case. The learned appellate court acquitted the co-convicts, Sunil Mahra and Kishore Mahra from the charges on the ground that their identification was erroneous.
4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.05.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar at Madhupur in G.R. Case No. 124 of 1998 / T.R. No. 164 of 2006 (arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 57/1998 dated 15.03.1998) had convicted the petitioners alongwith Sunil Mahra and Kishore Mahra under Sections 447, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court had acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned trial court had, interalia, sentenced the petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for 1 ½ years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction and sentence under section 147 and 148 of IPC was also passed and had directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer on the point of sentences of the Petitioner No.1 (Sahdeo Mahra) and Petitioner No.3 (Anil Mahra @ Anil Das). He submitted that the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 379, 447 of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed by the learned appellate court and the maximum sentence imposed upon the petitioners is for three months for 3 each of the offences under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that so far as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is a senior citizen and is aged about 65 years at present and the Petitioner No. 3 is aged about 40 years at present and the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners and the incident was of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced rigours of the criminal case for a long period and both the petitioners were all along on bail during trial and they had never misused the privilege of bail and they have already remained in jail custody for a period of 09 days from 03.03.2014 to 11.03.2014 during pendency of the present criminal revision petition. He also submitted that the entire allegation is that the petitioners had taken away the wheat crops worth Rs.4,500 - 5,000/- of the informant party. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, a lenient view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be confined to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody and if this Court finds proper, some fine amount may be imposed upon the petitioners.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have been appropriately sentenced by the learned appellate court, but he did not dispute the facts that as per the records of the case, it is their first offence and that the incident is of the year 1998. The learned A.P.P. submitted that so far as modification of the sentences is concerned, it is for this Court to pass appropriate order on the point of sentence. He also submitted that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentences, some fine amount as well as victim compensation may be imposed upon the petitioners which may be directed to be remitted to the victim-informant of the case.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going 4 through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report dated 14.03.1998 lodged by the Informant namely, Sukdeo Das alleging inter-alia is that he was sleeping at his field to save the wheat crops alongwith his father and on hearing talks of the accused persons, his father woke up and saw Sahdeo Mahra and Anil Mahra armed with sword and farsa standing there. When his father told them to stop cutting his crops, Sahdeo Mahra and Anil Mahra kicked them and told them not to open their mouth, otherwise they would kill them. They came under fear and remained lying on the bed and saw the act of cutting and carrying away the crops by Sahdeo Mahra, Anil Mahra, Sunil Mahra, Bachchu Mahra and other nine unknown persons at about 11.00 P.M. and on 12.03.1998 at about 04.00 A.M., they left the place. Thereafter, the father of the Informant informed the local Chowkidar first about the occurrence. It was further alleged that two months ago, the accused persons had forcibly cut down his one tree which was duly informed to Madhupur P.S. and the police had investigated the matter, but did not take any action and due to fear of the accused persons, the villagers did not support him.
9. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Madhupur P.S. Case No. 57/1998 dated 15.03.1998 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against five named persons including the petitioners and nine unknown persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons under the same sections and thereafter, on 22.07.1998, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections.
10. On 10.12.1998, the charges under Sections 447, 341, 323/149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against five accused persons including the petitioners, the charge under Sections 147 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against 5 Sunil Mahra, Kishore Mahra and Bachchu Mahra and the charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Sahdeo Mahra and Anil Mahra which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 06 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is Bigan Mahra who is the father of the Informant, P.W.-2 is Biru Mirdha who is the local Chowkidar, P.W.-3 is Narayan Mahto who is the local Mukhiya, P.W.-4 is Titu Mahto who is the Sarpanch, P.W.-5 is Sukdeo Das who is the Informant of the case and P.W.-6 is Yamuna Prasad who is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited the signature of the Informant on the written report as Exhibit-1 and the endorsement on the written report as Exhibit-2.
12. On 22.08.2003, the statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they simply denied the incriminating evidences put to them and claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.
13. The learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Paras-10, 12, 16 and 17 of its judgment. The learned trial court in Para-10 recorded that it is apparent from the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses that the Informant and his father have claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence which was committed in their presence and they have fully supported the occurrence stated in the written report and P.Ws.- 2, 3 and 4 who are the local Chowkidar, Mukhiya and Sarpanch have accepted that on the next day morning of the occurrence, the Informant had informed them about the occurrence. P.Ws.- 2 and 4 had themselves gone and seen the place of occurrence and had found the wheat crops 6 cut in the field as told by the Informant. In course of inspection of the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer has also confirmed the truth of the occurrence stated in the prosecution case. P.W.-2 has not been cross-examined on the point of information given to him about the occurrence by the father of the Informant. In their cross-examination, P.Ws.- 3 and 4 have admitted that the Informant had informed them about the occurrence on the next day of the occurrence. In his cross- examination, P.W.-6 has admitted that in course of investigation, he had seen the documents of the place of occurrence land, but he did not mention the khata and plot of the place of occurrence land in the diary. The Informant, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the place of occurrence land belonged to Bachchu Das, but he had taken the same through court by bhugatbandha and he has not paid the rent of the bhugatbandha land. P.W.-1 in his cross-examination admitted that Gobar Mahra is his cousin brother and partition of land and property has already taken place with him and the petitioners are the sons of Gobar Mahra.
14. The learned trial court in Para-12 recorded that in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it transpired from the record that the Informant has neither given the description of the land-in-question in his written report, nor he has given the weight or value of the stolen wheat, but the Informant and his father has admitted that the land-in- question is related to Plot Nos. 384 and 385 and they have claimed that they had received the land-in-question for six years from Bachchu Mahra by means of a registered deed of bhugatbandha and they had grown the wheat-in-question. The claim of the Informant and his father has been corroborated by P.W.-4. The learned trial court further recorded that the accused persons have not claimed that the Informant had not received the land-in-question from them by bhugatbandha or they have possession over the land-in-question or they had 7 grown or cut the crops at the place of occurrence. In such circumstances, the oral evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution was found sufficient to prove the fact that the wheat-in-question was grown by the Informant party which was taken away by the accused persons. The learned trial court opined that not giving the description of the land- in-question in the written report or not bringing the bhugatbandha document on record by the Informant was not fatal to the prosecution case in any way.
15. The learned trial court in Para-16 recorded that in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and after scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses minutely, the learned trial court reached the conclusion that the Informant has fully supported the prosecution case and the father of the Informant as an eye witness and P.Ws.- 2, 3 and 4 has hearsay witnesses have corroborated the version of the Informant and the Investigating Officer in course of investigation has also found evidence as stated by the Informant at the place of occurrence. Inspite of contradictions of some general nature, the evidence of the witnesses were found to be natural, sequential and of good quality.
16. The learned trial court further recorded in Para-17 that on the date and time of the occurrence, the accused persons armed with sword, farsa, lathi and hasua as members of an unlawful assembly went illegally to the land possessed by the Informant for the purpose of committing theft of the wheat crops and restraining his father and taking away the wheat for their personal gain causing wrongful loss to the Informant was proved.
17. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners alongwith Sunil Mahra and Kishore Mahra under Sections 447, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted Sahdeo Mahra and Anil Mahra @ Anil Das under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted Sunil Mahra, Kishore Mahra and 8 Bachu Mahra @ Bachu Das under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly and acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
18. The learned appellate court also considered the prosecution evidences and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings at Paras-7, 9 and 10 of its judgment. The learned appellate court recorded in Para-7 that there are two eye witnesses in the case and they are P.W.-1, father and P.W.-5, son who are also the victims of the case. P.W.-1 deposed that he woke up at 11.00 P.M. and when he was watching his Bhugatbandha field from his hut which he had taken from Bachchu Das, he heard the sound of cutting crops. He went to his son and wanted to come out from the hut, but he saw Sahdeo Mahra armed with sword, Anil Mahra armed with farsa and Bachchu Das armed with lathi and Sunil and Kishor alongwith 8 to 10 unknown persons were cutting the crops in the field. The accused persons stopped them from coming out and kicked them and they remained in the hut.
19. The learned appellate court recorded in Para-9 that it appears that the Informant P.W.-5 and his father P.W.-1 did not come out of the hut and they saw only three persons namely, Sahdeo Mahra, Anil Mahra and Bachchu Das near the hut who stopped them from moving out of the hut. The three accused persons committed the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court further recorded that since only three persons were present and not five persons or more, no unlawful assembly was formed and the essential ingredients for the offences under Sections 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code were not satisfied and therefore, Sections 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code were not applicable in the case. When the accused persons left the place of occurrence, the Informant and his father came out of the hut and saw the cut crops on the field and this fact has been 9 supported by P.W.-2. The father and son are the natural witnesses and their evidence is admissible. The Chowkidar deposed that he saw the field and found that someone had cut the crops and have taken away the same. The appellate court held that Sahdeo Mahra, Anil and Bachchu have been rightly found guilty for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned appellate court recorded in Para-10 that it appears that the land was in possession of the victim-informant which he had received from the accused Bachchu Das under Bhugatbandha and no evidence is available that the period of Bhugatbandha had expired and the ingredients of Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied and the accused persons have been rightly convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
20. The learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and also confirmed their sentences to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced their sentence to Simple Imprisonment for three months only under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and partly allowed the criminal appeal.
21. The learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and also confirmed their sentences under Section 341 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced their sentence to Simple Imprisonment for three months only under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and partly allowed the criminal appeal. The learned appellate also held that Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code were 10 not applicable in the case.
22. This Court finds that P.W.-5 is the Informant-victim and an eye witness to the occurrence who has deposed that on 12.03.1998 at about 11.00 P.M., he alongwith his father was in a hut situated in his field for guarding the wheat crops and in the meantime, he heard the sound of some persons and wanted to come out of the hut, but he saw that Anil Das armed with farsa, Sahadeo armed with sword and Bachu Das armed with lathi were standing outside and 9-10 persons were cutting the crops and he identified Sunil and Kishore. When the Informant protested, Sahadeo Mahra kicked him and Anil Mahra kicked his father and threatened them to kill them, if they raised alarm and thereafter, both sat there quietly. He further deposed that the accused persons took away the wheat crops worth Rs.4,500-5,000/-. He stated the plot number of the field as 384 and 385 and the area as 74 decimals which he had received from Bachu Das under Bhugatbandha. Thereafter, on the next morning, his father called the Chowkidar and informed about the occurrence and showed him the field. The Informant informed the Sarpanch and Mukhiya and called them and also showed the field who suggested them to report at the police station. The Informant exhibited his signature on the written report as Exhibit-1. This Court finds that the Informant has fully supported the occurrence stated in the F.I.R.
23. This Court further finds that P.W.-1 is the father of the Informant and the other victim of the case. He is also the other eye witness to the occurrence and he has fully corroborated the evidence of the Informant. P.Ws.- 2, 3 and 4 are the local Chowkidar, Mukhiya and Sarpanch respectively and they have also corroborated the occurrence on the point of removal of the wheat crops from the place of occurrence land. P.W.-6 Investigating Officer has also corroborated the occurrence and the place of occurrence land and its possession by the 11 Informant party at the time of the occurrence. This Court also finds that the petitioners have neither claimed their possession over the place of occurrence land at the time of the occurrence, nor they have claimed that they had grown the wheat crops over the place of occurrence land.
24. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given consistent and concurrent finding of facts after considering the entire evidences on record with regard to restraining the Informant and his father from coming out of the hut, committing criminal trespass by the petitioners upon the land possessed by the Informant party for committing theft of the wheat crops grown by the Informant party and committing theft of the wheat crops of the Informant party from the place of occurrence land.
25. This Court finds that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences in revisional jurisdiction calling for interference as there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld.
26. On the point of sentences imposed upon the petitioners, this Court finds that the occurrence is of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced the rigours of the trial for more than 23 years and they have remained in jail custody for a period of 09 days from 03.03.2014 to 11.03.2014 during pendency of the present criminal revision petition and they have no criminal antecedent.
27. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners are modified to some extent by imposing fine. Accordingly, the sentences of Petitioner No.1 (Sahdeo Mahra) and Petitioner No.3 (Anil Mahra @ Anil Das) for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code are modified and 12 reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs. 500/- each, their sentences for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code are modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs. 500/- each and their sentences for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs. 9,000/- each.
28. The aforesaid total fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned trial court and the fine amounts so deposited shall be remitted to the informant-victim of the case after due identification. In case, the fine amounts are not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the bail bond furnished by the petitioners will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and the petitioners namely, Sahdeo Mahra and Anil Mahra @ Anil Das would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned appellate court.
29. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and modification in sentences of the petitioners, the present criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of.
30. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
31. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to the court concerned.
32. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Saurav