Jharkhand High Court
Ramdhan Mahto & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2002
---
1. Ramdhan Mahto, son of Jagarnath Mahto
2. Gunda Mahto son of late Ram Lochan Mahto, both resident of village
Rangamatia, Police Station Seraikella District Seraikella Kharsanwa
3. Devan Mahto, son of Sri Dandu Mahto, resident of village Sindhu
Kope, Police Station Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsanwa
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. N. Deo, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, A.P.P.
---
06/03.04.2017Heard Mr. A. N. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2. learned A.P.P. for the State.
This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 97 (C ) of 1989 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in G. R. Case No. 379 of 1982 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable unde Sections 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively and the sentences were to run consecutively have been affirmed.
A First Information Report was instituted by P.W. - 6, Maheshwar Mahto, to the effect that when they were ploughing their field and sowing paddy the accused persons who were also engaged in the same work in the adjoining land had all of a sudden variously armed had attacked the informant party as a result of which several persons had sustained injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners pursuant to which cognizance was taken and after the case was transferred to the court of the learned Magistrate charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 323, 325, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of trial the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly which was subsequently affirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella on 15.09.2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 97(C ) of 1989.
-2-It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been stated that all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence should not have been relied upon by the learned trial court. It has been stated that during the pendency of the appeal since both the parties are related to each other the matter has been compromised and a compromise petition was also filed which, however, was never taken into consideration by the learned appellate court before affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. It has further been stated that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between the parties a compromise was also entered into. Learned counsel submits that since Sections 323 is compoundable and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the court, based on the compromise arrived at between the parties the judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. P.W. - 1, Bhondu Mahto, who is working as labourer under P.W. - 6 had stated about the manner of assault and the part played by each of the accused in committing such offence. This witness is an eye-witness.
P.W. - 2, Krishna Mahto, is the son of the informant who had also stated that while the informant and others were sowing paddy the accused persons all of a sudden had attacked the informant and others resulting in injuries suffered by several persons. This witness has stated that on account of the assault made by Ram Lochan his left hand was fractured.
P.W. - 3, Doman Mahto, is employed by P.W. - 6 and he had sustained injuries in his right ear.
P.W. - 4, Nuni Mahtain, has stated that on the date of occurrence she was present in the field along with the others when the accused persons has started indiscriminate assault.
P.W. - 5, Santra Mahatain, has also supported the occurrence as she is an eye-witness.
P.W. - 6, Maheshwar Mahto, who is the informant had clearly stated how the accused persons had committed assault upon his mother, -3- wife and son as well as P.W. 1 and P.W. - 3. The witness has also suffered some injuries on his right leg and he had became senseless.
Although, it has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the witnesses are interested witnesses but as would appear P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2, P.W. - 3, P.W. - 4, P.W. - 5, and P.W. - 6 all are injured eye-witnesses. P.W. - 1, Bhondu Mahto, is an independent witness as he was working in the field at the behest of the informant P.W.
- 6. Although the doctor has not been examined but the injury reports (Exhibit - 2 to 2/5) were duly proved by P.W. - 7 who is a retired Compounder. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer has also not caused prejudice to the defence in view of the fact that P.W. - 1 to P.W. 6 have consistently stated about the assault committed by the accused persons and the part played by each of the accused persons in committing such offence. The compromise petition which has been field during the trial had although not been taken note off but Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable and, therefore, such compromise which has belatedly been arrived at cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
There being consistent oral evidence supported by the injury report such circumstance, therefore, does not necessitate this Court to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners and it's subsequent affirmation in appeal. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the incident is of the year 1982 and both the parties seem to be related with each other. It also appears that the proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. being Misc. Case No. 633 of 1987 has also resulted in a compromise between the parties. The petitioners have for sometime remained in custody and such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioners to a consideration on the sentence imposed upon him. Accordingly the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone.
This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-