Jharkhand High Court
Pravesh Mahra S/O Sahu Mahra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2020
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1051 of 2014
1. Pravesh Mahra S/o Sahu Mahra
2. Sudeshi Mahra S/o Shree Mahara
3. Raghu Vansh Mahra @ Raghuvansh Ram S/o Mithu Mahra
4. Ramchandra Mahra @ Ram Chandra Ram S/o Jagdish
Mahra
5. Jagdish Mahra S/o Mithu Mahra
6. Jaga Mahra S/o Ramprit Mahra
7. Ramprit Mahra @ Deman Mahra S/o Late Pati Mahra
8. Ramji Mahra S/o Late Pahalu Mahra
9. Jitan Mahra S/o Late pahalu Mahra
All residents of village Ownar, P.O and P.S Chainpur , District
Palamau ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Kumar Tiwari son of not known to the petitioners,
resident of village Ownar, P.O and P.S Chainpur , District
Palamau. ... ...Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing 14/24.09.2020
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party.
3. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the Judgment dated 25.09.2014 passed by the 2 learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 113/2011 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioners under Section 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. However, the learned lower appellate court reduced the sentence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code to 4 months rigorous imprisonment. The learned appellate court did not interfere with sentence of the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.08.2011 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 629 of 2006 / T.R. No. 704/2011 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments on the point of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that entire issue arises out of land dispute between the parties. He further submitted that charge was framed under Section 148, 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, the petitioners were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for one year and under Section 447 of IPC for three months. Learned appellate court modified the sentence of the petitioners and reduced it to a period of four months under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners on 12.01.2015 had surrendered before the 3 learned trial court at the time of this revision application and were released on bail by an order of this court dated 29.01.2015 and thereafter, a few days might have been taken for furnishing bail bonds and accordingly, the custody of the petitioners has been more than 15 days. He also submitted that the learned appellate court had given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to only one of the appellants who was 83 years of age, but so far as present petitioners are concerned, no such benefit has been extended. He submits that the learned courts below have not at all considered the provisions of section 360 of Cr.P.C nor considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act so far as the petitioners are concerned.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are not habitual offenders and at present, they are living with their families and they are the only bread earners of their families and the Petitioner Nos.5 and 7 are senior citizens and as such, sending them back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners in custody and some amount of fine may be imposed while modifying the sentence as may be deemed proper by this Court. He further submits that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the offences for which the petitioners have been convicted and more than 14 years have elapsed from the date of the incident.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State has supported the impugned judgments and has submitted that the Complainant was in possession of the disputed land as per Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-4 and the petitioners tried to take possession of the land forcibly and PWs-1, 3 and 4 4 have fully supported the prosecution case and as such, no interference is called for under revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that the petitioners have not even served 50% of the punishment imposed upon them. However, he did not dispute the fact that there appears to be land dispute between the parties and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. He also submitted that the Complainant has suffered loss of his paddy at the hands of the petitioners and if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, then some fine amount may be imposed upon them which may be directed to be paid to the Complainant of the case. He also submits that the fine amount may not be less than Rs.3000/- per petitioner.
Findings of this Court
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records, this Court finds that the Complainant namely, Manoj Kumar Tiwari presented a Complaint being Complaint No. 629/2006 on 11.08.2006 stating interalia that Khata No.195, Plot No.1259, area 0.46 decimals, Plot No.559, area 1.13 decimals, paddy fields measuring an area of 40 decimals situated in Mouza- Odenar, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Palamau (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land') is the raiyati land of the Complainant and demand is running in the name of the father of the Complainant. Previously, some disputes were there in between the parties regarding the disputed land, for which cases were instituted in which judgments were passed in favour of the Complainant and thereafter, with the help of local police, the accused persons were prevented from going over the disputed land. It was alleged that on 08.08.2006, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came over the disputed land where the Complainant was doing work and the accused persons started ploughing the disputed land with their cattle 5 and when the Complainant and others objected, the accused persons did not oblige and ploughed the entire field and they re-planted paddy saplings of the Complainant and pushed the Complainant to the ground and also took away the 'Juwath', some utensils, umbrella and his wrist watch worth Rs.800/- and Rs.300/- from his pocket.
11. After appearance of the accused persons, evidence before charge were recorded and thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 148, 427, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and two others to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. This Court finds that in course of trial, the Complainant examined six witnesses in support of its case and certain documentary evidences in connection with the land in question were also filed. After closure of the evidence for the Complainant, the statements of petitioners under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they claimed to innocent. The defence did not produce any witness, but exhibited the certain documents in connection with the disputed property.
13. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the Complainant and also the documentary evidence exhibited on behalf of the defence and summarized its findings in Para-12 and 13 of its judgment and convicted all the accused persons including the petitioners under section 148 and 447 of Indian Penal Code.
14. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court, after considering the evidences and materials on record, recorded its findings in Para-15 of its judgment and held that the Complainant has successfully substantiated the charges against all the accused persons under Section 148 and 447 IPC by consistent, cogent and reliable evidence.
615. This Court finds that CW-4 has fully supported his own case and CW-1 and CW-3 have corroborated the case of the Complainant and therefore, keeping in mind the scope of revision jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned courts below and as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby confirmed.
16. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds that the First Information Report was instituted in the year 2006 and since then, more than 14 years have elapsed and the petitioners have suffered the rigours of the criminal case for the last 14 years and they have also remained in custody for more than 15 days. Further, no such allegation has been made by the opposite party regarding any misuse of the privilege of bail by the petitioners. The Petitioner No.5 (Jagdish Mahra) is presently aged about 67 years and the Petitioner No.7 (Ramprit Mahra @ Deman Mahra) is presently aged about 64 Years. This Court further finds from the trial court judgment that the present case is the first offence of the petitioners and land dispute is the genesis of the occurrence between the parties.
17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioners is modified to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners under both the offences i.e. Sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each of the Petitioners. The fine amount is to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of 3 months from today. On deposit of the fine amount, the Petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the Petitioners within the stipulated time, the learned court below 7 is directed to cancel their bail bonds and they would serve the sentence as directed by the learned lower appellate court.
18. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the Complainant of the case after due identification.
19. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in the sentence, this criminal revision petition is disposed of.
20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.
21. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
22. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through "FAX/e-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav