Disposed

Heera Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Oct 2021Cr.Rev./185/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in criminal revisions against a Sessions Court judgment, modified the rigorous imprisonment sentences of petitioners convicted under the IPC for offenses of affray and assault. The court reduced terms to limit them to the period already undergone in custody, levied fines, and directed their remission to victims.

What did the court decide?

Sentences modified to be limited to the period already undergone in judicial custody; fines of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 imposed on different petitioners to be remitted to victims.

Heera Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2012

¶3

Munna Mahto son of Heera Mahto

¶4

Pappu Mahto son of Lalji Mahto

¶5

Nepal Mahto son of Heera Mahto

¶6

Heera Mahto son of Late Govind Mahto

¶7

(deleted vide order dated 13.09.2021)

¶8

Kistu Mahto son of Babulal Mahto

¶9

All residents of Village- Chaparia, P.O.- Pathrol,

¶10

P.S.- Karon, District- Deoghar … … … Petitioners -VersusThe State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶11

With

¶12

Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2012

¶13

Manager Mahto son of Heera Mahto

¶14

Resident of Village- Chaparia, P.O. & P.S. Karon … District Deoghar

¶15

… … Petitioner … … Opp. Party

¶16

-Versus-

¶17

The State of Jharkhand

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶19

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 551 of 2012) Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 185 of 2012)

¶20

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. (In 551/2012) Mr. Jitendra Pandey, AP.P. (In 185/2012)

¶21

Through Video Conferencing

¶22

8/ 01.10.2021

¶23

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2012.

¶24

Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2012.

¶25

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite PartyState in Cr. Revision No. 551 of 2012 and Cr. Revision No. 185

¶26

¶27

of 2012 respectively.

¶28

The learned trial court, vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 127 of 1997 / T.R. No. 474 of 2005, arising out of Karon P.S. Case No. 16 of 1997 dated 26.03.1997, convicted the petitioners and Raju Mahto under Sections 149, 323 and 447 of IPC. The learned trial court further convicted Heera Mahto under Section 148 and Section 324 of IPC, further convicted the petitioners-Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto under Section 325 of IPC and further convicted the petitionersManager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Raju Mahto, Munna Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto under Sections 147 of IPC.

¶29

The learned trial court sentenced the convict-Heera Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest of the convicts (Petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 551/2012 and Raju Mahto) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court further sentenced the petitioners and Raju Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court further sentenced Heera Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced the petitioners-Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month. All the

¶30

¶31

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶32

Against the Judgment passed by the learned trial court, the Petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 551/2012 and Raju Mahto preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2005 in which the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, vide order dated 22.12.2011, confirmed the conviction of Hira Mahto under Sections 148, 323, 447 of IPC and the conviction of Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto under Sections 147, 323, 447 and 325 of IPC and also confirmed the conviction of Munna Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto under Sections 147, 323 and 447 of IPC. However, the learned appellate court acquitted Hira Mahto from the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the sentence of the appellants therein under Section 149 of IPC. The learned appellate court sentenced Hira Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and one month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC. The learned appellate court sentenced Nepal Mahto and Raju Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, one month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC and six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned appellate court sentenced of Munna Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and one month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentences, the learned appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal.

¶33

¶34

Against the judgment of the learned trial court, the petitionerManager Mahto preferred Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2005 in which the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, vide order dated 22.12.2011, confirmed his conviction under Sections 147, 323, 447 and 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, one month for the offence under Section 447 of IPC and six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court set aside the sentence under Section 149 of IPC. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence, the learned appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal.

¶35

At the outset, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners confined their arguments on the point of sentences imposed upon the petitioners by the learned appellate court.

¶36

Learned counsel submitted that petitioner namely, Nepal Mahto and Manager Mahto were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for three months, three months, six months and one month respectively. So far as other petitioners are concerned, they were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for three months, three months and one month respectively. Learned counsel also submitted that in order to consider the point of sentence, it would be relevant to consider that there was case and counter case between the parties arising out of the same incident and the informant party was also convicted, but they were extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel submitted that

¶37

¶38

before the learned trial court, the defence had produced relevant exhibits i.e. Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B to prove that there was case and counter case between the parties.

¶39

Learned counsel further submitted that there was free fight between both the parties on account of trivial issue regarding the crop being eaten up by the animal of the other party. Learned counsel also submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that no previous conviction of the petitioners was brought to the notice of the learned court below.

¶40

Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the present criminal revision, the petitioner-Manager Mahto remained in custody for the period from 12.06.2012, when he surrendered, to 26.06.2012, when he was directed to be enlarged on bail and a few days must have been taken by him for furnishing the bail bond. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, they had surrendered on 27.08.2012 and they were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 03.09.2012 and a few days must have been taken by them in furnishing bail bond. Learned counsels also submitted that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed for the alleged offences and accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that 24 years have elapsed from the date of incident, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified. They also submitted that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to jail after long lapse of time from the date of incident. They submitted that some fine amount may be imposed which may be remitted to the victim of the present case by way of victim compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below by convicting the petitioners with

¶42

¶43

regard to the offences in which their conviction has been upheld and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned appellate court judgment. However, during the course of argument, it has not been disputed that there was case and counter case between the parties arising out of the same incident and the informant parties of the present case have also been convicted in the counter case and they were granted the benefit under the Probation of the Offenders Act. So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel submitted that it is for the court to pass order on the point of sentence.

¶44

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant namely, Raghu Mahato alleging that on 25.03.1997 at 8 A.M., the accused persons namely, Heera Mahto, armed with bhujali, Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Munna Mahto, Raju Mahto, Pappu Mahto, Kistu Mahto and four-five other covillagers armed with Lathi came at the door of the Informant’s house and started asking the informant as to why his animals ate their crops. On which the Informant assured the accused persons that such occurrence will not occur in future. In spite of that, the accused Heera Mahto abused the Informant and ordered the other co-accused persons to assault him and thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted the Informant. On informant’s hulla, the witnesses namely, Nunlal Mahto, Kishori Mahto, Ishri Mahto and Kailu Mahto came to save him, but the accused persons also assaulted them.

¶45

On the basis of the fardbeyan, a Formal First Information Report was registered as Karon P.S. Case No.16 of 1997 dated 26.03.97 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of IPC against Heera Mahto, Manager Mahto, Nepal Mahto, Munna Mahto, Raju Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto. After

¶46

¶47

completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 447 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. Accordingly, vide order dated 06.09.97, cognizance was taken by the then learned S.D.J.M. Madhupur at Deoghar and the case was transferred to the court of Shri J.P.N. Pandey, the leaned J.M. on 15.01.1998.

¶48

The charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 447 of IPC were framed against all the accused persons and vide order dated 07.03.2002, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On 19.07.2003, the defence evidence was closed. The defence adduced its evidence.

¶49

In course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses in order to prove its case, out of which, PW–1 Nunlal Mahto is the brother of the informant, PW–2 Kishori Mahto is the nephew of the informant, PW–3 Kailu Mahto is the son of the informant, PW-4 Sagar Rai is a hearsay witnesses, PW–5 Raghu Mahto is the informant of the case and PW–6 is the doctor. The prosecution proved the injury reports which were marked as Exhibits- 1, 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3.

¶50

The defence, on the other hand, produced the certified copy of the judgment dated 21.06.2001 passed in G.R. No.126 of 97 / T.R. No.279 of 2001 which was marked as Exhibit-A and the certified copy of the First Information Report of Karon P.S. Case No.15 of 1997 which was marked as Exhibit–B. The Exhibits- A and B show that for the same date and time of occurrence i.e. 25.03.1997 at about 8 to 8.30 A.M., another case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 325 of IPC was filed by one Uttam Kumar Yadav son of Heera Mahto against Raghu Mahto and the witnesses of the present case which goes to show that some occurrence did take place on 25.03.1997 at about 8 A.M..

¶51

The conviction and sentence of the accused persons including

¶52

the petitioners is summarised as under:

¶53

Sl. No.	Name of Convict / Petitioner	Conviction by trial court	Sentence by trial court (R.I.)	Conviction by appellate court	Sentence by appellate court(R.I.)
1.	Munna Mahto	149 323 447 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 1 Year	149-set aside 323 447 147	03 Months 01 Month 03 Months
2.	Pappu Mahto	149 323 447 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 1 Year	149 -set aside 323 447 147	03 Months 01 Month 03 Months
3.	Nepal Mahto	149 323 447 325 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 3 Years & fine of Rs.1,000/- 1 Year	149- set aside 323 447 325 147	03 Months 01 Month 06 Months & fine of Rs.1,000/- 03 Months
4.	Heera Mahto (deleted)	149 323 447 148 324	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 2 Years 2 Years	149-set aside 323 447 148 324-aquitted	03 Months 01 Month 06 Months
5.	Kistu Mahto	149 323 447 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 1 Year	149- set aside 323 447 147	03 Months 01 Month 03 Months
6.	Manager Mahto	149 323 447 325 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 3 Years & fine of Rs.1,000/- 1 Year	149-set aside 323 447 325 147	03 Months 01 Month 06 Months & fine of Rs.1,000/- 03 Months
7.	Raju Mahto	149 323 447 325 147	2 Years 6 Months 3 Months 3 Years & fine of Rs.1,000/- 1 Year	149- set aside 323 447 325 147	03 Months 01 Month 06 Months & fine of Rs.1,000/- 03 Months

¶54

Considering the fact that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged as back as in the year 1997 and the petitioners have faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long period and there was also case and counter case between the parties and

¶55

¶56

no previous conviction has been brought on record so far as the petitioners are concerned, ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioners is modified to some extent.

¶57

Accordingly, the sentences of Nepal Mahto and Manager Mahto are modified and limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.15,000/each and the sentences of Munna Mahto, Pappu Mahto and Kistu Mahto are modified and limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.10,000/each. The aforesaid fine amounts shall be deposited before the learned court below within a period of six months from today.

¶58

The fine amounts, so deposited, are directed to be remitted to the main victims of the case i.e. P.W.-2 (Kishori Mahto) and P.W.-5 (Raghu Mahto) or to their legal heirs, as the case may be, who had suffered injuries pursuant to which the petitioners - Nepal Mahto and Manager Mahto were convicted under Section 325 of IPC. The amount should be remitted to them in equal proportion upon due identification.

¶59

In case the petitioners do not deposit the fine amount as directed by this Court, the bail bond furnished by them will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and they will serve the sentence imposed by the learned appellate court.

¶60

Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the petitioners, both the criminal revision applications are hereby disposed of .

¶61

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶62

Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.

¶63

Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX / e-mail.

¶64

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶65

Binit/

Heera Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Narayan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Amin Singh Alias Jogeshwar Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nageshwar Singh Alias Naga Singh Alias Mohan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand Represented through CBI

Chudka Soren Alias Churka Soren Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Kapri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Ansari And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand Thr CBI