Dismissed

Shahdeo Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./1107/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision challenging conviction and sentence for offences under IPC provisions. Court affirmed conviction and trial judgment but held the period already undergone by petitioner in jail shall be treated as the period of sentence.

What did the court decide?

Period already undergone by the petitioner in jail shall be treated as the period of sentence; Criminal Revision Application dismissed with this modification.

Shahdeo Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1107 of 2015

¶2

….

¶3

Shahdeo Mahto …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party

¶4

-----

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶6

-----

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

¶8

06/17.03.2023 The present Criminal Revision No. 1107 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2010 has been allowed in part by acquitting the petitioner under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, but has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2010 passed by Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 2663 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 148/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code. Although, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2010 passed by Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 2663 of 1998, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 147/148/323/506/325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of (1) year for the offence under Sections 148/506 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶11

-2-

¶12

that the case has been instituted in the year 1998 and learned counsel for the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Application has only confined his prayer only on the point of sentence and i.e. the petitioner has not argued this Criminal Revision Application on merit.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sentence may be reduced and the period undergone by the petitioner may be treated as the period of sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner and the informant are the co-agnates and there is admitted land dispute between the parties and a title suit pending, which is evident by the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below and as such, sentences as imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court below may be reduced to the period undergone by the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in Cr. Revision No 955 of 2014 vide order dated 14.02.2020 and which arising out of the said above case i.e. in Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 2663 of 1998, the other five accused namely Giridhari Mahato, Motu Mahto, Manoj Mahto, Bhutu Mahto and Madhu Mahto have been sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and the case of the present petitioner may be treated as the similar manner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has assaulted the informant and as such, conviction of the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court may be upheld by this Court.

¶16

Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides.

¶17

It transpires that Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 has been instituted by the informant against six persons i.e. Giridhari Mahato, Motu Mahto, Manoj Mahto, Bhutu Mahto and Madhu Mahto and this petitioner- Shahdeo Mahto. However, the police has submitted charge

¶18

-3-

¶19

sheet only against five persons Giridhari Mahato, Motu Mahto, Manoj Mahto, Bhutu Mahto and Madhu Mahto and this petitioner- Shahdeo Mahto was not sent up for trial. However, during pendency of the trial, the name of the petitioner again surfaced on the basis of petition filed under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. and the petitioner has tried separately. It transpires that during trial, learned Court below has examined six witnesses, which are as follows:-

¶20

i) P.W.-1, Nirmal Mahto,

¶21

ii) P.W.-2, Chandra Mohan,

¶22

iii) P.W.-3, Radhika Devi, iv) P.W.-4, Ram Kishun Mahto, v) P.W.-5, Jai Prakash Mahto and

¶23

vi) P.W.-6, Ruplal Mahato.

¶24

It transpires that the learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323/325/147/148/506 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of one (1) year for the offence under Sections 148/506 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶25

However, learned Appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, but has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2010 passed by Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 2663 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 148/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner was in custody after dismissal of the appeal i.e. from 09.09.2015 and he was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.09.2015.

¶27

-4-

¶28

During course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the web copy of the Criminal Revision No. 955 of 2014 disposed on 14.02.2020 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in the above judgment, which arising out of the same P. S case i.e. Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998, the sentences of these petitioner were reduced to already undergone by them during the jail.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 21.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2010 for the offences under Sections 148/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 2663 of 1998 are affirmed. However, so far as the sentence is concerned, the period already undergone by the petitioner-Shahdeo Mahto in the jail shall be the period of sentence.

¶30

With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above.

¶31

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶32

Kamlesh/

Shahdeo Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahdeo Mahto 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

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sajid Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Shaheed Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand