Jharkhand High Court
Jasai Soren @ Mangal Soren Son Of Bishu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 JHA 1353
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 511 of 2012
1. Jasai Soren @ Mangal Soren son of Bishu Soren
2. Shyamlal Soren son of Late Jatha Soren
3. Anant Soren @ Aland Soren son of Sisu Soren
4. Bishu Soren son of Late Budharai Soren
(Deleted vide order dated 23.08.2021)
5. Dhena Soren son of Bishu Soren
6. Thubara Soren son of Shisu Soren
7. Demada Soren @ Dedma Soren son of Shisu Soren
8. Sonalal Soren son of Shyamlal Soren
9. Bhola Marandi son of Lakhi Marandi
(Deleted vide order dated 23.08.2021)
10. Kali Marandi son of Late Bhulai Marandi
(Deleted vide order dated 23.08.2021)
11. Maheshwar Marandi son of Late Mangal Marandi
12. Bhonda Soren @ Bhoda Soren son of Late Jitan Soren
(Deleted vide order dated 23.08.2021)
13. Bhuneshwar Soren son of Bhola Soren
All residents of Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.- Sorwan
District- Deoghar ... ... Petitioners
-Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Raghunath Tudu son of Manjhi Tudu
Resident of Village- Naroodih, P.O. & P.S.- Sarwan
District- Deoghar ... ... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. Through Video Conferencing .......
10/25.08.2021 Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. 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 03.04.2012 passed by the learned 2 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court - confirmed the conviction of Jasai Soren, Shyamlal Soren, Bhola Marandi and Bhonda Soren under Sections 148, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and modified and reduced their sentences to Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
- modified and convicted the rest petitioners under Section 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar, in P.C.R. case No.471 of 2001 / T.R. No. 1077 of 2006 had convicted all the petitioners under Sections 148, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for three years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone in custody by them during trial was directed to be set off.
35. Altogether 14 persons were convicted by the learned trial court and all the 14 persons had filed common criminal appeal before the learned appellate court being Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2006 whose final judgement is subject matter of the present criminal revision.
6. From the cause title of the present criminal revision petition, this Court finds that initially names of 14 persons were mentioned, but the name of Lakhi Marandi was deleted and the numbering of the petitioners was accordingly altered. The total number of petitioners in the present case were only 13 except Lakhi Marandi. During the pendency of the present criminal revision, Bishu Soren, Bhola Marandi, Kali Marandi and Bhonda Soren i.e., Petitioners No.4, 9, 10 and 12 have expired and their names have been struck off from the cause title vide order dated 23.08.2021 passed by this Court.
7. Out of the surviving petitioners, Jasai Soren and Shyamlal Soren i.e., Petitioners Nos.1 & 2 of the present criminal revision petition are the persons convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the present age of Petitioner No.1 is about 48 years and Petitioner No.2 is about 65 years and the rest of the surviving petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. This Court also finds that Petitioners Nos. 2, 13, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 had surrendered before the learned Court below on 30.08.2012 and petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11 & 12 had surrendered before the learned Court below on 03.09.2012. It further appears that although one person namely, Lakhi Marandi was convicted by the learned Court below, he did not surrender either on 30.08.2012 or on 03.09.2012 and his present status is not reflecting from the records of the present case.
49. The prosecution case based on complaint petition. The allegations were that on 08.09.2001, between 8 AM to 12 AM, the accused persons, with intention to grab the land of the complainant, removed about twenty mounds of maize crops worth Rs.5,000/- from Plot No.221 which was in the possession of the complainant. It was alleged that the accused persons, after forming the unlawful assembly, harvested the crops which belonged to the complainant. The complainant claimed himself to be Jamabandi Raiyats of Village Nawadih, Mouja 350 of Sarwan P.S. and he has properties at Jamabandi No.11 of the said village. During last survey settlement, the said plot of Jamabandi No.11 was named in favour of the grandfather of the complainant in purcha as Bari II land on which the complainant is ploughing his maize crop since long. It is further alleged that the accused persons always threatened the complainant to harvest his crops for which the complainant had filed an informatory petition on 06.08.2001 before the S.D.M., Deoghar. It was further alleged that accused no.1 was armed with pistol, accused no.2 with tangi, accused no.4 with lathi, accused no.10 with bow & arrow, accused no.3 with sword and accused no.14 with burcha. When the complainant raised alarm, the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence. It was stated that after the occurrence, the complainant alongwith P.W.-1 Gono Mahto went to the concerned P.S., but they were directed to file the present case and accordingly, the complainant case was filed. The cognizance was taken on 10.10.2001 after securing the attendance of the accused persons, charges were explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. The complainant had mentioned altogether fifteen persons as accused, but in order dated 06.02.2002, it has been clarified that accused No.3 and accused No.13 were the same 5 person and accordingly, the accused at serial no.13 was deleted and 14 persons faced the trial.
11. In course of trial, the complainant examined altogether eight witnesses including P.W.-1 Devi Sharan Murmu who was given the land on batai by the complainant and had planted maize crop for the complainant. At the stage of evidence, large number of documentary evidences was adduced from the side of the complainant and the complainant was examined as P.W.-1. The complainant fully supported the prosecution case and submitted that all the accused persons armed with different types of weapons, entered into the maize crop of the complainant, which was planted by P.W.-3 under batai scheme and thereafter, harvested and dishonestly removed the crop from the land of complainant. P.W.-1 in para 5 has supported the complainant version about carrying weapons by the accused persons and admitted that all the accused persons had assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps. He has been fully cross- examined from the side of the defence and has stated that the disputed land in the present case is in the name of Raghunath Tudu which belongs to the complainant.
12. P.W.-2 Lakhinder Hansda also supported the complaint case regarding the carrying weapons by the accused persons and when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw the accused persons taking away the maize crop after cutting it. He also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence after five minutes, Gono Mahto, Kanthi Baitha, the complainant etc. reached at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that the accused persons were armed with different weapons and they had assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps and admitted that about twenty mounds maize 6 were plucked by the accused persons which was worth Rs.5,000/-.
13. P.W.-3 Gono Mahto is the person who claimed to have planted the crop at batai scheme of the complainant and he also fully supported the prosecution case by saying that the accused persons dishonestly removed the crop worth Rs.5,000/- from their land. He also supported that they were carrying various weapons. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant had told him that about twenty mounds of maize crop were plucked by these accused persons, which was worth about Rs.5,000/-.
14. P.W.-4 Kanthi Baitha also supported the prosecution case and stated that he heard the alarm from the place of occurrence and he went there and found the accused persons carrying and plucking the maize crop, which was planted by P.W. - 3 on batai of the complainant's land. He has also fully supported the prosecution case and has been duly cross- examined.
15. P.W.-5 Raghunath Pandit is the Complainant who has fully supported the prosecution case including the fact that P.W.-3 had planted the maize crop at plot No.221 under batai in his land. He has also supported the case regarding carrying weapons by the accused persons and these accused persons were claiming the land over the said plot. This witness has been fully cross-examined.
16. P.Ws. - 6, 7 & 8 are formal witnesses and they have only admitted the handwriting and signatures of the writers over the documents filed by the complainant.
17. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and held that the complainant has completely established his case against the accused persons as complainant was able to prove his possession over the land 7 against the accused persons on which the complainant with the help of Gono Mahto, on batai, was growing maize crop since long. So far as the other charges are concerned, learned trial court recorded that all the witnesses during their depositions in one line corroborated the allegation against the accused persons i.e., the rioting after carrying deadly weapons as well as of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant and these accused persons are found guilty of charges leveled against them. The learned trial court, interalia, sentenced the petitioners, whose details have been mentioned above. While considering the point of sentence, learned trial court recorded that there was land dispute between the parties, but refused to grant them the benefit of Probation of Offenders act and sentenced the petitioners accordingly.
18. Learned appellate court also scrutinized the evidences on record and recorded its finding from Para-8 onwards and discussed the evidences on record, both as oral and documentary, and also contradictions as pointed by the defence. The conclusions drawn by the learned appellate court are recorded in Paras -8 and 9 which are as follows:
"8. These witnesses in their statement have fully supported the statement of PW-5 (Complainant). All these witnesses of prosecution have been cross examined at length on behalf of accused / appellants. But there is no any vital contradictions in their statement in order to disbelieve their credit. However, there are some minor discrepancies in their statement which appear natural and it do not affect the credit of witnesses. PW
- 4 in para no.7 of his cross-examination has told that at the time of occurrence accused appellant after giving half of the harvested maize to Gono Mahto, PW-3 took away rest of the maize from the place of occurrence. But PW - 3 Gono Mahto in his cross-examination in para no.11 has told that when he reached at place of occurrence, the accused / appellants had gone away from there. So, in light of this statement of PW - 3, it is not believable that ½ maize was given by appellants to Gono Mahto at the time of occurrence. Further Gono Mahto 8 who is bataidar of complainant has clearly proved that the complainant is in possession of place of occurrence and he planted maize on behalf of complainant as Bataidar PW - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in their statement have proved that at the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence was in possession of complainant. Further Ext. 1 goes to prove that land of Jamabandi No.11 was settled by legal heir of recorded tenant in favour of Jeena Tudu (grandfather of complainant) and Sowan Tudu. Further Ext. - 5 goes to show that aforesaid land is recorded in the name of Manjhi Tudu (Father of complainant) in Khatiyan. So, Ext.1 and 5 also supports the possession of complainant at the place of occurrence. The learned counsel of the appellants said that Ext.-1 is not valid document under Santhal Pargana tenancy Act, but at present, I have not to decide the title of any person and I have not to go about validity of Ext. -1. However, from Ext.-5, possession of complainant on place of occurrence has got support.
9. Thus on careful consideration of evidences of prosecution, I find that prosecution has succeeded to prove that at the time of occurrence all above named appellant being member of unlawful assembly came at place of occurrence and at that time appellant Jasai Soren was armed with pistol, Shyamlal Soren was armed with axe, Bhola Marandi was armed with arrow and bow and bhado Soren was armed with sword and appellants dishonestly took away maize of complainant after harvesting it from place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence one appellant Anant Soren beated the complainant by fist and slaps. Further it has been also proved that at the time of occurrence all the appellants have knowledge of act done by all appellants and so all appellants are liable for all offences committed during occurrence either by any appellant or by all appellants at the time of occurrence. Pistol, axe, arrow and bow and sword are deadly weapon and at the time of occurrence, jasai Soren, Shyamlal Soren, Bhola Marandi and Bhonda Soren were armed with deadly weapon and other appellants were not armed with deadly weapon. So, I find that in Court below prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 148, 323, and 379 of the IPC against the appellants.
19. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized all the materials on record and have recorded concurrent findings and have convicted the 9 petitioners. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction of the petitioners calling for interference under revision jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned appellate court is upheld.
20. On the point of sentence imposed upon the petitioners, this Court finds that the occurrence is of the year 2001 and the petitioners have faced the rigours of criminal case for 20 years and the case arises out of land dispute between the parties and they have also remained in jail custody for some period during pendency of the present criminal revision petition.
21. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
22. Accordingly, sentences of the remaining 09 petitioners are modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with total fine indicated as under:
Name of Age at the Conviction and sentence Date of Period undergone petitioner time of recorded by appellate Surrender in judicial custody conviction/ court Bail granted in connection present age by this court vide order with the case with dated fine as follows-
12.09.2012 Jasai Soren @ 33 years/ These 02 petitioners 03.09.2012 Rs.3,500/-
Mangal Soren 47 years were convicted Shyamlal 50 years/ U/ss. 148, 323 & 379 30.08.2012 Rs.3,500/- Soren 64 years of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months U/s. 148 of IPC; S.I. for 1 month U/s 323 IPC; S.I. for 3 months U/s 379 IPC Anant Soren 35 years/ These 07 petitioners 03.09.2012 Rs. 2,500/- 49 years were convicted Dhena Soren 31 years/ U/ss. Sections 147, 03.09.2012 Rs. 2,500/- 45 years 26 years/ 323 & 379 of IPC 30.08.2012 Rs. 2,500/- Thubara 40 years and sentenced to Soren undergo Demda Soren 24 years/ 30.08.2012 Rs. 2,500/- 38 years S.I. for two months 10 @ Dedma U/s 147 IPC; Soren S.I. for one month Sonalal Soren 28 years/ U/s 323 of IPC; 30.08.2012 Rs. 2,500/- 42 years S.I. for three Maheshwar 33 years/ months U/s 379 of 03.09.2012 Rs. 2,500/- Marandi 47 years I.P.C. Bhuneshwar 26 years/ 30.08.2012 Rs. 2,500/- Soren 40 years
23. The petitioners are directed to deposit the respective fine amounts as indicated above before the learned trial court within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned trial court and 50% of the fine amounts so deposited shall be remitted to the Complainant-victim of the case after due identification.
24. In case the fine amounts are not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners will be cancelled and the petitioners would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned appellate court. In case the fine amounts are deposited within the stipulated time frame, the bailors of the petitioners will be discharged from their liability under the bail bonds.
25. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and modification in sentences of the petitioners, the present criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of.
26. Before parting with the judgements, it is worth noting that altogether 14 accused persons had filed criminal appeal before the learned appellate court and before this Court, all the persons, except Lakhi Marandi, were the petitioners in this revision petition, out of them 4 persons have expired and their names have been expunged vide order dated 23.08.2021 passed by this Court. The learned court below is directed to find out from the available records as to what ultimately happened to the convict Lakhi Marandi, and proceed against 11 him in accordance with law so that his conviction and sentence is taken to a logical end.
27. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
28. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to the court concerned.
29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) R.Kumar