Partly allowed

Dharam Munda And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./552/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction of petitioners for an assault during a land dispute. While the sentence of the principal offender was upheld, the sentences of five others were remitted with a fine to be paid to victims, considering the delay and their ages.

What did the court decide?

Sentences of petitioners No. 2 to 6 modified to period already undergone, with fine of Rs. 14,000 each payable to victims. Petitioner No. 1's sentence affirmed and bail cancelled.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 552 of 2003

¶3

Dharam Munda, son of Dhanu Munda

¶4

Fatu Pandey, son of Jagdish Pandey

¶5

Diwakar Pandey, son of Ramchandra Pandey

¶6

Shatrughan Munda, son of Dewasi Munda,

¶7

Mani Munda, son of Late Dhanu Munda,

¶8

Kelwa Munda, son of Dhanu Munda All residents of village Bisa, Police Station- Gola, District Hazaribagh … … Petitioners

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

¶13

Through Video Conferencing

¶14

05/13.09.2021

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶16

2. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

¶17

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 263/1998, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.08.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1162 of 1995 / T.R. No. 167/1998 and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the present six petitioners and one Subhash Singh.

¶18

4. The learned trial court had convicted seven persons including the present six petitioners under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and had further convicted the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 148 and 324 of

¶19

¶20

the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them as under:

¶21

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC;

¶22

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 149 of IPC;

¶23

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; and

¶24

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 325 of IPC with fine of Rs. 500/each; and

¶25

in addition, the Petitioner No.1 (Dharam Nath Munda) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of IPC; and

¶26

all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶27

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

¶28

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He further submitted that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are seen and compared with the injuries as indicated by the doctor P.W.8, the same do not match in toto, but these aspects have not been properly considered by the learned courts below. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt.

¶29

6. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there are certain specific allegations against the Petitioner No.1 in the F.I.R. and without concealing, it has come in evidence that he had assaulted the informant with tangi, but so far as the assaults on other persons are concerned, the same do not stand

¶30

¶31

proved, when seen with the allegation made in the F.I.R. 7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, but the learned trial court did not consider the provision under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. properly and refused to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and the learned appellate court remained totally silent on the point of sentences of the petitioners. He further submitted that considering the facts that the occurrence is dated 18.07.1995 and more than 26 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long period and they have remained in custody from 26.06.2003 to 12.08.2003 during pendency of the present criminal revision application, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with imposition of some fine amount and/or victim compensation. He also submitted that no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners in jail custody again after a long gap.

¶32

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

¶33

8. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding. She emphatically referred to the allegation made against the Petitioner No. 1 and submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 caused grievous injury to the informant of the case which is supported by the medical evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 does not deserve any sympathetic view. She submitted that so far as the other petitioners are concerned, it is for this Court to consider

¶34

¶35

their sentences and she has nothing to add further. However, it is not in dispute from the side of the State that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, in which, they have been convicted.

¶36

Findings of this Court

¶37

9. The prosecution case is based on a written report filed by the Informant namely, Ganesh Mahto (P.W.-7) alleging that on 18.07.1995 at 08:00 A.M., the women family members of the informant namely, Sachani Devi and Rewati Devi were going to harvest the paddy crop from the field situated at Bisha Tanr and when they reached near Ghorghorwa Tanr, all the accused persons started abusing them asking as to why they were going to plough the land and they also said that they should inform the matter to their male family members. It was also alleged that when the informant heard the matter, he rushed to the place of occurrence and made protest to the accused persons against abusing or assaulting the women of his family. It was further alleged that on protest made by the informant, all the accused persons started assaulting him and his relatives namely, Chuni Lal Mahto, Sukar Mahto, Ishu Mahto, Sachani Devi, Sohari Kumari and Rewati Devi. It was further alleged that the accused Dharam Nath Munda (Petitioner No.1) assaulted the informant by tangi at his right leg causing injury to him. On raising alarm, several villagers including Gali Mahto arrived there and saw the occurrence and thereafter, the accused persons fled away.

¶38

10. On the basis of the written report, a formal F.I.R. was registered as Gola P.S. Case No. 33/1995 and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Subhash Singh and cognizance of the

¶39

¶40

offence was taken. Thereafter, the charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused persons and additional charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the Petitioner No.1 which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶41

11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W.-1 is Ishu Mahto, P.W.-2 is Sohari Devi, P.W.-3 is Rewati Devi, P.W.-4 is Sachani Devi, P.W.-5 is Chunni Lal Mahto, P.W.-6 is Sukar Ram Mahto, P.W.-7 is Ganesh Mahto, who is the informant of the case, P.W.-8 is Dr. Mahavir Oraon, who is the Doctor, who had examined the P.Ws. 1 to 7 and P.W.-9 is Chandrashekher Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case. P.Ws. -1 to 7 are the injured witnesses of the case.

¶42

12. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they totally denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be innocent.

¶43

13. The learned trial court scrutinized the materials on record and recorded its finding at Para-15 which reads as under:

¶44

“ 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that it is admitted fact that there is dispute between both the parties in respect of the land in question. It has also not come in the evidence by both the parties as to who have grown the paddy crops over the land in question. However, if it is presumed that the informant and witnesses were aggressors, even then law does not permit anybody to take law and order in his own hand. If at all the prosecution witnesses were aggressors, the accused person must report the matter to the police. Thus, I find that prosecution has been fully able to prove that all the accused have formed unlawful assembly armed with weapon and they have assaulted the informant along with witnesses with a view to accomplish the common object i.e. land in question, attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. Hence, I find all the

¶45

¶46

accused persons are guilty for the offence u/s 147/323/149/325 I.P.C. only and further I find the accused Dharamnath Munda is guilty for the offence u/s 148/324 I.P.C. Accordingly, their bail bond stand cancelled and they are taken into custody.”

¶47

14. The learned appellate court also scrutinized all the materials available on record and recorded that the defence has totally denied the occurrence, rather they claimed the disputed land and stated that the informant has lodged a false case only to grab the land, as it appears from the crossexamination of the witnesses. The defence produced the order of the Commissioner of North Chota Nagpur Division in land restoration division with regard to disputed land between both the parties as well as the order of the Additional Collector with respect to the disputed land. But on going through the documents as stated above, it appeared that the defence has not exhibited the aforesaid documents. The learned appellate court further recorded that it is admitted that all the witnesses are relatives of the informant, but all are injured and their injuries were examined by the Doctor (P.W.-8). It is also an admitted fact that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence, it appeared that there is no contradiction in their evidence on the point of place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence on the whole. The Investigating Officer of the case has given the detailed description of the place of occurrence which is Ghorghorwa Tanr, but not on the disputed land. The learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court with the aforesaid observations and findings and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioners and the co-convict namely, Subhash Singh.

¶48

15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that

¶49

¶50

P.W.-7 Ganesh Mahto is the informant of the case. He deposed that on 18.07.1995 at 8:00 A.M., he was ploughing his land and he heard from one boy of the village that all the accused persons were abusing female members of his house. He rushed to the place of occurrence and forbade the accused persons and then all the accused persons started to assault him and his relatives with stick and stone. He specifically stated that Dharam Nath Munda assaulted him with tangi at his right leg as a result of which he got bleeding injury on his leg. He further stated that when he fell down, Dharam Nath Munda and Fattu assaulted him at his left hand near the wrist, due to which he got fracture injury. Fattu Pandey, Diwakar and Dharam Nath assaulted Ishu Mahto with tangi, due to which they got injured and fell down on the earth. He also stated that due to injury, he became senseless and when he regained sense, he saw the injuries on the persons of Sohari Devi, Sachani Devi, Rewati Devi, Thakur Das, Chunni Lal and Sukar Mahto in the hospital and then he lodged a case against the accused persons. He also stated that he remained in the hospital for a month. He exhibited his written report as Exhibit-1. He further stated that the occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused persons have won the case of the disputed land in the court of the Commissioner, against which he has filed a revision petition before the High Court. This Court finds that the Informant has fully supported the prosecution case and has corroborated the contents of the written report.

¶51

16. P.W.-6 is one of the injured witnesses of the case. He deposed that on 18.07.1995 at 8 A.M. when he was ploughing his land, he heard some noise that some occurrence of marpit has occurred and one boy informed him that his relatives are being assaulted at Ghorghorwa

¶52

¶53

tanr road. He went to the place of occurrence and saw that Dharam Nath Munda, Diwakar, Pandey Subhash, Kelwa Munda, Mani Munda, Fatwa Pandey and Shatrughan Munda were assaulting Sachani Devi, Rewati Devi and Shohari Devi with bricks and stone. He further stated that Ganesh, Ishu, Chunnilal and others were also present at the place of occurrence. He specifically stated that Dharam Nath Munda and Diwakar assaulted him with lathi on his head, due to which, he got bleeding injury over his head. Subhash and Kelwa assaulted Chunnilal with bricks, stone and lathi and Dharam Nath Munda assaulted Ganesh with tangi on his right leg and on his left hand. Fattu assaulted Ishu Mahto with lathi . He further stated that on hullah, nobody came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, they went to the police station and a case was lodged by Ganesh Mahto (informant) against the accused persons and all the injured were sent to the hospital for their treatment. He also admitted that the above occurrence took place due to land dispute. He was fully cross-examined by the defence, but he did not deviate on the point of occurrence.

¶54

17. This Court finds that P.W.-6 has also corroborated the evidence of the informant. So far as P.Ws. -1 to 5 are concerned, they are also the injured witnesses of the case. They have stated the prosecution case in the same voice and have also fully supported the prosecution case and their evidences have corroborated the evidence of each other.

¶55

18. P.W.-8 is the Doctor who had examined the inured persons and had found the following injuries on their bodies: - Injury on the body of Ganesh Mahto (P.W.-7)

¶56

(i) Incised wound on right leg on middle part of Tibial bone measuring 2”x ¼” x ¼ “

¶57

(ii) Abrasion on right hand 1” x ½”

¶58

(iii) Lacerated wound on lower Arm of left hand two in number each 1” x ¼” x ¼”

¶59

¶60

(iv) Collis fracture of left hand

¶61

Type of injury- injury No.4 is grievous and injury Nos.1, 2, and 3 are simple in nature caused by blunt and hard substance except the injury no.1 which is caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶62

Injury on the body of Chunni Lal Mahto (P.W.-5)

¶63

(i) Incised wound on head at right upper part 2 ½” x ¼” x ¼”

¶64

(ii) Lacerated wound on head at left upper part 2 ½” x ¼” x ¼”

¶65

Type of injuries are simple in nature and injury No.1 caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury No.2 caused by blunt substance and the age of injury is within six hours.

¶66

Injury on the body of Suker Ram Mahto (P.W.-6)

¶67

(i) Incised wound on right side of head 3”x ¼” x ¼”

¶68

(ii) Incised wound on left side of head 2 ½” x ¼” x ¼”

¶69

(iii) Pain on both hands.

¶70

Injury Nos.1 and 2 caused by sharp cutting substance and injury No.3 caused by blunt substance and the age of injury is within six hours.

¶71

Injury on the body of Ishu Mahto (P.W.-1)

¶72

(i) Fracture of left middle part of shaft of humerus.

¶73

(ii) Lacerated wound on left leg at middle part of tibial bone 1 ¼”x ¼” x ¼”

¶74

(iii) Lacerated wound on palm at middle on fourth finger ½” x ½” x½”

¶75

(iv) Bruise on right upper and lower hand 2” x ½” and 2” x ½”

¶76

(v) Swelling of left temporal bone 2” x 1”

¶77

Injury No.-1 is grievous in nature and injury Nos.-2, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

¶78

Injury on the body of Rewati Devi (P.W.-3)

¶79

(i) Incised wound on fore head at right upper part 2½” x ¼” x ¼”

¶80

(ii) Lacerated wound on head 2” x ¼” x ¼” Type of injury: Simple in nature and caused by sharp cutting substance and injury No.2 is caused by hard

¶81

¶82

and blunt substance.

¶83

Injury on the body of Sohari Devi (P.W.-2)

¶84

(i) Abrasion on left hand 2” x 2”

¶85

(ii) Pain at right shoulder

¶86

(iii) Pain at left shoulder

¶87

(iv) Pain at left leg. Type of injuries: Simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injury is within six hours.

¶88

Injury on the body of Sachani Devi (P.W.-4)

¶89

(i) Fracture on proximal phelese on middle part of the little finger of right hand.

¶90

(ii) Body action.

¶91

Type of Injury- injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.-2 is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of the injury is within six hours.

¶92

19. This Court further finds that P.W.-8 exhibited all the injury reports as Exhibits- 2 to 2/6 and has corroborated the injuries of the injured witnesses of the case. In his crossexamination, P.W.-8 stated that on the same day, he had also examined Mani Munda (Petitioner No.5) and had found low back pain on his body which was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He had also examined Dharam Nath Munda (Petitioner No.1) and had found body ache on his body which was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He exhibited both the injuries reports as Exhibits- A and A/1 respectively.

¶93

20. P.W.-9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that after taking charge of investigation, he issued the requisitions (Exhibits-4 to 4/6) to examine the seven injured persons. Thereafter, he again recorded the statement of the informant and proceeded for the place of occurrence, which was situated in village Bisa at Ghorghorwa Tola. He further stated that khata number of the disputed land is 29 and plot No. is 281. He further described the boundary of the place of

¶94

¶95

occurrence as North- Common Road, South-paddy field of Janak Mahto, East-Tand of the informant and West- paddy field of the informant. He also recorded the statements of two independent witnesses who supported the occurrence but were not examined. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Mani Munda and Dharam Nath Munda and taken their statements who denied the occurrence, but did not say anything in their defence. He collected the injury reports and submitted charge-sheet. He has been cross-examined at length and in his cross-examination, he stated that not a single witness has stated that the weapon tangi was used in the occurrence. He further stated that he has not examined the ownership of the disputed land and has also not enquired about the injuries found on the body of the accused-Dharam Nath Munda and Muni Munda. This Court finds that P.W.-9 has supported and corroborated the prosecution case.

¶96

21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings after properly considering the evidences available on record including the medical evidences of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any such material calling for interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶97

22. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences for interference in revisional jurisdiction and the contradictions as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not material contradictions to draw any conclusion of illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, is affirmed.

¶98

23. So far the sentences of the petitioners are concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

¶99

¶100

particularly the admitted fact on record that there was land dispute between the parties and that the occurrence is dated 18.07.1995 and the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have faced the rigours of the criminal case for more than 26 years and they have remained in custody in connection with the present case for some period and it is their first offence and at present, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are aged about 47 years, 58 years, 68 years, 53 years and 51 years respectively, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served, if their sentences are modified to some extent.

¶101

24. So far as the sentence of the Petitioner No.1 (Dharam Munda) is concerned, this Court finds that there is specific evidence on record that the Petitioner No.1 was armed with tangi and he had inflicted fracture injuries to the informant and accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 149, 325 of IPC along with others as well as for offences under section 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentences of Petitioner No.1.

¶102

25. Accordingly, the sentences of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.14,000/- each to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this Judgment to the learned trial court. Upon deposit of the fine amount as aforesaid, the petitioners as well as their bailors will stand discharged from their liabilities under their respective bail bonds.

¶103

26. In case, the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time frame, bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and they would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned trial court.

¶104

27. The fine amounts, so deposited by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6,

¶105

¶106

shall be remitted to the seven victims of the case namely, Ganesh Mahto, Chunni Lal Mahato, Suker Ram Mahato, Ishu Mahto, Rewati Devi, Sohari Devi and Sachani Devi, in equal proportion, after due identification.

¶107

28. The bail bond of the Petitioner No.1 is cancelled.

¶108

29. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings, the present criminal revision application with regard to the Petitioner No.1 is hereby dismissed and is disposed of with regard to the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 with modification in their sentences.

¶109

30. From the records, it appears that altogether 07 accused persons were convicted by the learned trial court and 07 convicts had preferred the criminal appeal before the learned appellate court, but the present criminal revision application has been filed by 06 convicts only and the seventh convict namely, Subhash Singh is neither a petitioner before this Court in the present criminal revision application, nor any information is available on record regarding his surrender before the learned trial court for serving the sentences passed against him. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed to enquire into the matter and take all appropriate steps with regard to the co-convict namely, Subhash Singh.

¶110

31. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶111

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

¶112

33. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶113

Mukul/

¶114

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dharam Munda And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Munda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mumtaz Miya Alias Mumtaz Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Mahatha Vs State of Jharkhand

Tileshwar Lohara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prakash Singh Vs State of Jharkhand