Partly allowed

Gorka Paswan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./993/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the appellate court's conviction but modified sentences for most petitioners convicted of sections 148, 323, and 448 IPC. Considering the age of the offence and lack of antecedents, the Court confined sentences to time already served, imposing fines and cancelling bail bonds if fines were not paid, while dismissing the petition for ringleaders.

What did the court decide?

Sentences modified to period already undergone for most petitioners with alternative fines; relief denied for Petitioners 1 and 4; bail bonds cancelled.

Gorka Paswan and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.993 of 2012

¶3

Gorka Paswan

¶4

Jamun Paswan, Both S/o Chintamani Paswan

¶5

Jitendra Paswan, S/o Gambhir Paswan

¶6

Tumpa Paswan, S/o Jago Paswan

¶7

Pampu Paswan @ Papu Paswan, S/o Chentamani Paswan

¶8

Rampu Paswan @ Rumpa Paswan, S/o Jago Paswan

¶9

Sukhdeo Paswan, S/o Bhutka Paswan

¶10

Sangma Paswan, S/o Tika Paswan All residents of Village-Kalipur, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar

¶11

… Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand

¶14

Punnu Das, S/o Late Gorhan Das R/o Village-Kalipur, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, Dist.-Deoghar

¶15

... Opposite parties

¶16

¶17

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

¶18

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Parties-state : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

¶19

Through:Video Conferencing

¶20

15/16.09.2021 Heard Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶21

Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

¶22

The present petitioner is directed against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No.92 of 2006 by learned Court of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in connection with G.R. Case No.183 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No.382 of 2006.

¶23

The petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 31.05.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Deoghar, in G.R. Case No.183 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No.382 of 2006, by which,

¶24

a. each of the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 448 of IPC;

¶25

b. the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 were convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, and,

¶26

c. the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 were convicted for the offence

¶27

¶28

under Section 354 IPC.

¶29

The learned trial court sentenced each of the petitioners to undergo -

¶30

a. R.I. for a period of six months for offence under Section 323 of IPC;

¶31

b. R.I. for two years for offence under Section 448 of IPC;

¶32

c. R.I. for two years for offence under Section 148 of IPC and

¶33

petitioner Nos.1 and 4 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 325 of IPC;

¶34

petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for offence under Section 354 of IPC and all the offences were directed to run concurrently.

¶35

So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the appellate court was of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge for-

¶36

a. offence under Section 148, 323 and 448 against all the petitioners;

¶37

b. additionally for offence under Section 325 of IPC, only against petitioner No.4

¶38

c. additionally for offence under Section 354 of IPC against the petitioner No.1.

¶39

The learned appellate court acquitted the petitioner no.1 for offence under Section 325 of IPC and acquitted the petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 5 for offence under Section 354 of IPC and accordingly modified the conviction of the petitioners. Consequently, the appellate court convicted the petitioner No.4 for offence under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 448 of IPC; petitioner No.1 for offence under Sections 148, 323, 448, 354 of IPC and rest of the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 323 and 448 of IPC and consequently, the appellate court modified the sentence also.

¶40

¶41

Petitioner No.4 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for offence under Section 323 of IPC, R.I. for three months, for offence under Section 148 of IPC, R.I. for two months for offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for four months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 325 of IPC with default sentence to undergo R.I. for one month;

¶42

Petitioner No.1 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for offence under Section 323 of IPC, R.I. for three months for offence under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for two months for offence under Section 448 of IPC and R.I. for two months for offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶43

Rest of the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for offence under Section 323 of IPC, R.I. for three months for offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for two months for offence under Section 448 of IPC.

¶44

From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the present case was admitted vide order dated 10.07.2015 and it was clearly recorded that the present criminal revision application will be heard on limited question of sentence only. It further appears from the order dated 10.07.2015, that a submission was made that petitioners nos. 1 to 4 & 6 to 8 had surrendered before learned court below on 16.05.2015 and petitioner No.5 had surrendered on 20.06.2015 and since then, they were in custody. However, vide order dated 10.07.2015, the petitioners were directed to be released on bail.

¶45

It appears from the lower court record that after passing the bail order by this Court, the petitioners had furnished their bail bond on 15.07.2015. Thus, it appears that the petitioners, except petitioner no.5, have completed two months custody and accordingly petitioners, except petitioner no.5, have already served the sentence for offence under Section 323 of IPC as well as for offence under Section 448 IPC and the petitioner no.1, who has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC, has also served the sentence under the said section. The concerned

¶46

¶47

petitioners, who have been sentenced under Section 448 of IPC have also served the sentence of two months.

¶48

What remains is petitioner No.4 who has served two months, out of three months for offence under Section 148 IPC and two months out of four months for offence under Section 325 of IPC and he has been asked to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Petitioner No.1 has served two months out of three months for offence under Section 148 of IPC and petitioner Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 & 8 have served two months out of three months for offence under Section 148 of IPC.

¶49

So far as petitioner No.5 is concerned, he has remained in custody from 20.6.2015 till 15.07.2015 and has not completed any of the sentences for offence, for which he has been convicted for two months for offence under Section 323 of IPC for three months under Section 148 of IPC and for two months under Section 448 IPC.

¶50

Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned court below so far as the conviction of the petitioner under which their conviction has been sustained by the appellate court, but some sympathetic view may be taken in view of the fact that the alleged offence is of the year 2003 and more than 18 years have elapsed from the date of incident. He has submitted that the sentences of the respective petitioners under the offence, for which they have not yet completed the sentence, may be limited to the petitioner already undergone by them in judicial custody and if found proper, some fine may be imposed.

¶51

The learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer. However, he has submitted that it is for the court to take a call in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders of conviction and the case was admitted for consideration only on the point of sentence.

¶52

As per the prosecution case, on 19.03.2003 in evening the

¶53

¶54

informant Tunnu Das along with his family members was celebrating festival of Holi and at that time petitioner Gorka Paswan, Jamun Paswan, Jitendra Paswan, Tumpa Paswan and Jago Paswan came and entered in the house of informant and forcibly gave colour at body of sister of informant and on protest by sister of informant these appellants threw her on earth and pulled her Sari and beated her and on noise women of village assembled and then accused / petitioners fled away from there. Then after passing sometime on that day, all above named accused being member of unlawful assembly and armed with axe, farsa, lathi came and entered in the house of informant and beated informant and other. Petitioner Gorka Paswan gave axe blow at the head of informant causing injury on his head and then informant fell down. Petitioner Jamun Paswan hit the sister of informant and the wife of Raju Das namely Pramila Devi by lathi near their eye causing injury. Petitioner Jitendra Paswan hit Manendra Paswan by iron rod at his hand causing swelling in hand. Petitioners Tumpa, Pampu, Rumpa, Sangma and Sukhdeo Paswan beated others by means of lathi and stick causing injuries to other person and when the neighbour of informant came, the accused / petitioners fled away from there. Thereafter the villagers brought informant and others at Police Station.

¶55

The case was registered as Jasidih P.S case no. 49 of 2003. After investigation, I.O. of the case submitted charge sheet u/s 341, 323, 324, 307, 354 and 34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken. Charges u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 448 and 354 of IPC were framed against all petitioners and their statement was also recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. During trial, no evidence was produced by petitioners in court below in their defence. In court below in order to prove charges, oral and documentary both evidences were produced on behalf of prosecution. The court below considering oral and documentary evidences of prosecution, convicted and sentenced the petitioners by aforesaid impugned order.

¶56

¶57

In order to prove the prosecution case, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and Ext. 1 to 3 were produced as documentary evidence. PW – 9 Lal Kishun Ram is I.O. of the case, P.W. -7 Dr. Dhanwantari Tiwary is doctor, P.W. 8 Punu Das is informant of the case, P.W. 1 Pramila Devi, P.W. – 2 Mohini Devi, P.W. 3 Kunti Devi, P. W. 4 Raju Das, P.W. 5 Binod Das and P.W. – 6 Soni Devi are witnesses on the fact. Ext. 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5 are injury reports of Punu Das, Mahendra Das, Pramila Devi, Soni Devi, Mohini Devi and Kunti Devi, respectively. Ext. 2 and 2/1 are signatures of Punu Das and Raju Das on petition of informant for lodging FIR. Ext. 3 is formal FIR; Ext. 3/1 is endorsement on petition of informant for lodging FIR.

¶58

After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offences as mentioned above. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences on record and partly interfered with the conviction as well as the sentences. The learned appellate court recorded its findings, interalia, as under: -

¶59

“ P.W-1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 who are witnesses on fact of occurrence and they in their statements have proved that, at the time of occurrence, all above named accused came at the house of informant being member of unlawful assembly and armed with lathi, axe and rod and entered in house of informant and beated Punu (Informant), Soni Devi, Pramila, Kunti, Mohini and Mahendra causing simple injury on their body. The witnesses of prosecution have not told that and at the time of occurrence accused / petitioner Gorka hit Kunti to cause injury on her body, but informant (P.W.-8) told that, petitioner Tumpa hit Kunti on her hand by lathi causing fracture on her hand. Further victim Soni in her statement has clearly told that only Gorka on pretext of giving colour on occasion of Holi, tore her saree and blouse and outraged her modesty, and other petitioner according to her

¶60

¶61

did not outrage her modesty. Thus, on careful consideration of evidences of prosecution, I find that in court below the prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 148, 323, and 448 of IPC against all petitioners and they are guilty for these offences and u/s 325 of IPC against only appellant Tumpa and he is guilty for this offence, and u/s 354 of IPC against only petitioner Gorka and he is guilty for this offence. But prosecution has not succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 325 of IPC against petitioner Gorka and he is not guilty for this offence. The prosecution has also not succeeded to prove charge of offence u/s 354 of IPC against petitioner Jamun, Tumpa and Pampu and they are not guilty of this offence. Therefore, I find that the aforesaid impugned order regarding conviction of petitioners requires modification. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned order regarding conviction of petitioners is hereby modified and petitioner Tumpa is convicted for offence u/s 148, 323, 325 and 448 of IPC. Petitioner Gorka is convicted for offence u/s 148, 323, 448 and 354 of IPC and rest above named petitioners namely Jamun Paswan, Jitendra Paswan, Rumpa Paswan, Sukhdeo Paswan, Sangma Paswan and Pampu Paswan are convicted for offence u/s 148, 323 and 448 of IPC. “So far as the sentences are concerned, they were also modified by the learned appellate court as already mentioned above.

¶62

This court finds that the impugned judgement passed by the learned appellate court calls for no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. No illegality, perversity or material irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction recorded in appellate court’s judgment is upheld.

¶63

On the point of sentence

¶64

Petitioner no. 1

¶65

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences so far as petitioner No.1 Gorka Paswan is concerned, he has been convicted by the learned court below not only under

¶66

¶67

Section 323, 448 and 148 of IPC, but also under Section 354 of IPC and though he has served the sentences for the offence under Sections 323, 448 and 354 of IPC by remaining in custody for a period of two months, but the sentence under Section 148 IPC is for a period of three months.

¶68

Considering the nature of allegation and the manner in which, the offence has been committed, which apparently shows that the same was initiated at the instance of the petitioner No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner No.1.

¶69

Petitioner no. 4

¶70

So far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 448, 148 & 325 of IPC. He has served the sentences for offences under Sections 323 and 448 of IPC by remaining in custody for a period of custody of two months, but the sentence under Sections 148 and 325 of IPC are for a period of three months and four months respectively.

¶71

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and specific allegation against the petitioner No.4, who was armed with sharp cutting weapon and had assaulted and consequently was convicted under Section 325 of IPC, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner No.4 and accordingly his case, is dismissed. He has also been inflicted with a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the learned court below.

¶72

Petitioners Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 & 8

¶73

So far as petitioners Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 & 8 are concerned, they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 448 of IPC and they have remained in custody for two months and have served their sentences for offences under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, but the sentence under Section 148 IPC, which a for a period of three months, has not yet been completed.

¶74

Considering the fact that the present offence is of the year 2003 and there appears to be no criminal antecedent of these petitioners, this Court is of the view that the sentences of these

¶75

¶76

petitioners are required to be modified to some extent.

¶77

Accordingly, the sentence of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.3, Petitioner No.6 is modified and is limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offence under Section 448 of IPC. The fine amount is directed to be deposited within a period of four months from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount, their bail bond of these petitioners will be cancelled and they will serve the sentence already imposed by the learned Court below. In case of deposit of the fine amount within the stipulated time frame, these petitioners as well as bailers of these petitioners will be discharged from liability of bail bonds.

¶78

So far as petitioners Nos.7 & 8 are concerned, their case stands on similar footing as that of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 & 6 with additional point that they are in advance stage of their life, in as much as petitioner No.7 appears to be of 70 years of age and petitioner No.8 is of 63 years of age.

¶79

Accordingly, their sentences are modified and confined to the period undergone by them in judicial custody in connection with the present case with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each, which is to be deposited before the learned court below within a period of four months from the date of communication of this Judgment. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount, they will serve the sentences as imposed by learned court below.

¶80

Petitioner No.5

¶81

So far as petitioner No.5 is concerned, he has remained in custody for a period of 20 days during the pendency of the present revision application and so far as the offence is concerned, he also appears to have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 448 of IPC with sentences of three months, two months and two months respectively. The other similarly situated persons have served the sentence for two months and he has served the sentence only for a period of 20

¶82

¶83

days.

¶84

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the sentence of the petitioner No.5 is modified and reduced to the period of two months for each of the offences under Sections 148, 323, and 448 of IPC and the sentences are directed to run concurrently with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 148 of IPC, which is to be deposited by him within a period of four months before the learned court below from the date of communication of the present judgment. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount, he would serve the remaining sentences as awarded by learned court below.

¶85

Consequently, the present revision application, so far it relates to petitioner No.1 and 4, is hereby, dismissed. So far as it relates petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are concerned, the same is disposed of with modification of sentence.

¶86

The bail bond furnished by the petitioners Nos. 1, 4 & 5 are hereby cancelled. 31. This revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶87

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶88

Let the lower court records of this case be sent back to the court concerned.

¶89

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX, e-mail.

¶90

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶91

R.Kumar/

¶92

¶93

Petitioner No.	Petitioner Name	Conviction under section
1.	Gorkha Paswan	Two month for u/s 323, 448, Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 354
2.	Jamun Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323, Two Month for u/s 448
3.	Jitendra Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323, Two Month for u/s 448
4.	Tumpa Paswan	Two Month for u/s 323, Three Month for u/s 148, four Month for u/s 325, Two Month for u/s 448	Rs/-1000/-fine
5.	Pampu Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323; TwWo Month for u/s 448
6.	Rampu Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323, Two Month for u/s 448
7.	Sukhdeo Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323, Two Month for u/s 448
8	Sangam Paswan	Three Month for u/s 148, Two Month for u/s 323, Two Month for u/s 448

¶94

Petitioner No.5	Period already undergone with fine of Rs.15,000/-
Petitioner No.1	Under Section 148 of IPC, with fine of Rs.1,000/-
Rest of the petitioners	Under Section 148 with fine of Rs.1,000/-

¶95

12
Petitioner No.1	Under Section 325 IPC, confined the sentence.
Petitioner No.1, 2,3,6,7 & 8	Period already undergone with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 148 IPC
Petitioner No.4	No interference
Petitioner No.5	Period already undergone under Section 148 IPC, period already undergone under Section 323, period already undergone under Section 448 with fine of Rs.15,000/-

Gorka Paswan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorka Paswan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

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

Prakash Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Mahatha Vs State of Jharkhand

Dharam Munda And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Shiv Prasad Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Khaitu Ansari and Another Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gour Rana Vs State of Jharkhand