Partly allowed

Susen Mahto and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence for offenses under Sections 323 and 353 IPC. However, due to the petitioners' first-time offense status, the revision was disposed of by granting them release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, subject to paying a fine and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by filing a bond and paying a fine of Rs. 3,000 each.

Susen Mahto and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.600 of 2014

¶2

Susen Mahto

¶3

Lokesh Mahto @ Lokesh Ranjan Mahto ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party -----

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay S. Jha , Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Spl.PP -----

¶6

10/Dated: 28/11/2019

¶7

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Seraikella in G.R. No.888/2007, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and RI for 6 months under Sections 323 and 353 IPC respectively and sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence but they did not commit any offence. This has been admitted by the informant in his cross examination. He further submits that due to late evening (darkness) they have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the learned trial court did not give any reason for not granting them privilege of Probation of Offenders Act and as such the learned trial court has committed error on point of law. He further submits that the petitioners are busy in their life and sending them back to prison would not serve any fruitful purpose rather interest of justice demands that the petitioners being not a habitual offenders be granted privilege of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶9

Learned APP though supports the impugned order but did not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶10

-2-

¶11

petitioners to the effect that there is no criminal antecedent of petitioners.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed.

¶13

Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act may be granted to the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are not habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent, whatsoever, except the present one. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the character of the offenders and the nature of offence which does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioners back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose and it is expedient to release them on probation.

¶14

As a result, the petitioners are directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs.25,000/-each coupled with personal bond to the effect that they shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach of any conditions, they will subject themselves to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioners within three months from the date of this judgment.

¶15

However, in the fats of the case and nature of the offence, I am of the view that the petitioners should also pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each.

¶16

It is made clear that the aforesaid amount of

¶17

-3-

¶18

Rs.3,000/- each (total Rs.6,000/-) should be paid within a period of 3 months from today before the Secretary, DLSA, Seraikella or the petitioners shall serve SI for 3 months for noncompliance of the order of fine.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant revision application is disposed of.

¶20

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶21

Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶22

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Seraikella.

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶24

Pramanik/

Susen Mahto and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susen Mahto and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyampado Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Hamid Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Guddu Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand