Jharkhand High Court
Jaldhar Mahto & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 672
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2002 (R)
---
Against the judgment dated 24.12.2001, passed by the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 213 of 98/45 of
96.
-----
1. Jaldhar Mahto, Son of Raghu Mahto.
2. Shashi Mahto, Son of Darbari Mahto.
3. Panchu Mahto, Son of Bajrangi Mahto.
4. Rabindar Mahto, Son of Mathur Mahto.
5. Karu Mahto, Son of Ghanshyam Mahto.
All are residents of Village-Sarkanda, P.S. Godda(T), District-
Godda. ......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .......Opposite Party
---
For the Petitioners : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. R.K. Singh, APP
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J Heard the parties.
This application is directed against the judgment dated
24.12.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 213 of 98/45 of 96, whereby and whereunder, the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Godda in G.R. Case No. 94/92, T.R. No. 323/96 convicting the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 341, 323, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified directing the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs.2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year failing which the petitioners have to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. The prosecution case, as would appear from the FIR, is that on 20.1.1992 at about 4 P.M. when the informant was sitting in his shop and was engaged in unloading bricks from tractors for construction of house on plot no. 533, petitioners and one Shyam Sundar Mahto had come and forbade the informant from unloading the bricks. On refusal, it is alleged that accused persons started abusing him and thereafter he was assaulted with fists and slaps. It is also alleged that Shyam Sundar Mahto had taken away Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner no. 4 had taken away Rs.350/- whereas other petitioners had also taken away wrist watch, cigarette, soaps etc. and had thereafter fled away. It is alleged that the reason for the occurrence is ongoing land dispute between the parties.
-2-3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No.94/92 was instituted, in which after investigation chargesheet was submitted, pursuant to which cognizance was taken and after framing of charge, trial proceeded. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Godda on 2.8.1996 under sections 147, 341, 323, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and some of the petitioners were sentenced under sections 147, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code for various terms. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners being Cr. Appeal No.213 of 1998/45/96 but the same was dismissed on 21.12.2001 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda and the sentence imposed upon the petitioners was modified by directing the petitioners to execute a separate bond of Rs.2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year, failing which the petitioners were to undergo R.I. for one year.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the so called eye witnesses are interested witnesses. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer was not examined and therefore the place of occurrence could not be proved, which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has also been submitted that the injuries allegedly suffered by P.W-4 as described by him do not tally with the injury report. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioners and the informant are on inimical terms and they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. In the alternative, an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgement of conviction, sentence imposed upon the petitioners and modified by the learned appellate court be also further modified in view of the long pendency of the case.
5. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution witnesses. Defence had examined one witness. P.W-1- Hemant Kumar Sah is an eye witness to the occurrence as at the time of assault, he was sitting in the Veranda of the shop. This witness has stated that on refusal by the informant, who happens to be the father of this witness, in unloading bricks, the accused persons had assaulted the informant and some of the accused persons had taken away various articles including cash. P.W-2-Murli Pandit has merely -3- stated that there was a proceeding between the parties under section 107 of Cr.P.C.. P.W-3-Adhik Lal Sah is also an eye witness who was present in the place of occurrence as he was taking some articles from the shop of the informant. This witness has also categorically stated about the act of assault committed by the accused persons. P.W-4-Jamuna Prasad Sah is the informant and he had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons on refusal on his part to stop unloading the bricks from the tractor. P.W.-5 is the doctor Binod Kumar, who had examined the informant P.W-4 and had found certain injuries on his person. P.W-6-Ram Ratan Rajak is a formal witness who had proved fardbeyan, which was exhibited as Ext-1/2. D.W-1 has proved certain rent receipts to suggest that the accused persons were in possession of the land.
6. Occurrence thus have been supported by the informant P.W-4 as well as his son P.W-3. Apart from P.W-4 and P.W-1, P.W-3 is a chance witness, who was present at the place of occurrence as he was purchasing some articles from the shop of the informant and has also given a vivid description of the manner of assault and part played by each of the petitioners in committing such act. Injuries suffered by P.W-4 have been sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence. Ext-3 is a document which proves that the informant was in possession of the land and the suit for eviction filed by him was also decreed in his favour. Although a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. had been initiated between the parties and based on the said proceeding, contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners of their false implication on account of previous enmity but the said contention cannot be accepted solely on the ground that enmity cuts both ways and previous pendency of a case will not absolve the petitioners from the offence they have committed. More so, because of the fact that consistent oral and documentary evidence are also on record to suggest that the land belongs to the informant and the petitioners were the aggressors who had inflicted several injuries upon P.W-4 which have been corroborated by the medical evidence.
7. In such circumstances, therefore, the order of conviction passed against the petitioners is sustained. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been modified by the learned appellate court is concerned, since more than 15 years have lapsed from the date of judgement passed in appeal, the petitioners are therefore at this -4- juncture not required to execute any bond.
This application therefore stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence imposed upon the petitioners.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 3rd April, 2017 Rakesh/NAFR