Kamal Mahato and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 1273 of 2015

¶3

Kamal Mahato, son of Late Malu Mahato,

¶4

Dinesh Mahato, son of Sri Bansi Mahato, (Abated vide order dated 06.07.2023)

¶5

Bablu Mahato, son of Sri Bansi Mahato

¶6

Umesh Mahato, son of Sr. Bansi Mahato All resident of Village Tirla Tola – Rangatand, P.O. – Nuagarh, P.S. – Gamharia, District – Saraikella – Kharsawan

¶7

… … Petitioners

¶8

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioners : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP

¶12

¶13

22 /12.09.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2012 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

¶15

3. The petitioners have been convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2012 passed by learned J.M 1st Class, Saraikella, in Gamharia P.S. Case No. 68/2008, T. R. No. 119/2012, for offence under sections 341, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 341 of the IPC one year for the offence under section 343 IPC and three years for the offence under section 324 IPC with a direction that all the sentences to run concurrently. Arguments of the Petitioners

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Dinesh Mahato, who was the main assailant in the present case, has expired, and so far as others are concerned, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, who is the informant of the case. She has submitted that in the F.I.R, the informant had stated that Umesh Mahato and Kamal Mahato held the victim, and P.W-1 in his evidence stated that it was Kamal and Dinesh.

¶17

5. The learned counsel submits that there is no independent witness, and the witnesses are interested witnesses.

¶18

6. She has also submitted that the injuries are simple in nature, and therefore, offence under Section 324 IPC is not made out. She has referred to Section 320 IPC.

¶19

7. The learned counsel submits that under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC, there is a provision for imprisonment or fine or both. In case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments of conviction, the sentence be modified considering the long-drawn litigation.

¶20

Arguments of the State

¶21

8. The learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that there are numerous eye-witnesses in the present case. The petitioners had come to the house and shop of the informant where the incident had taken place. The eye-witnesses having supported the allegations and the learned courts having scrutinized the evidences on record; the impugned orders do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has also submitted that the scope of interference in the revisional jurisdiction is very limited, and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding, and there are evidences against all the petitioners to sustain their conviction. Certainly, the sharp cutting injury by using a knife was given by Dinesh Mahato, but so far as other two petitioners are concerned, they were along with him and they had held the victim while conducting the crime. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted that it is for this Court to pass appropriate order.

¶22

Findings of this Court

¶23

9. This Court finds that the case was based on a written report given by the informant on 08.09.2008, stating that at about 9 a.m., his covillagers Bablu Mahato, Dinesh Mahato, Kamal Mahato and Umesh Mahato came to his shop, which is situated in his house, and demanded “Tiranga” (tobacco). The informant and his son were in the field while his family members were present. The accused abused their family members and asked as to why they did not give them “Tiranga” (tobacco) in the last night. The accused Kamal and Bablu told to kill the

¶24

2

¶25

informant, and on provocation, Dinesh lashed with knife attacked the informant with intention to kill, the informant tried to escape but sustained injury on stomach. The accused Kamal Mahto and Umesh Mahto caught his son and again Dinesh Mahto attacked with knife causing injury to his waist after which he fell to the ground.

¶26

10. The case was instituted for offence under sections 447, 341, 323, 324/34 of IPC. The charge sheet was filed under the same sections. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. At the stage of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. P.W.-1 was the informant and the doctor was examined as P.W.-12. There are two injured witnesses namely the P.W.1[informant] and Jogendra Mandal P.W.-9 [son of P.W-1]. This Court finds that the injured witnesses have fully supported the case and have described the occurrence. P.W.-4 (wife of the informant) is also the eyewitness and has also supported the allegation against the petitioners. The witnesses have been duly cross-examined.

¶27

12. So far as the manner of occurrence is concerned, P.W. 1 who is the informant of the case namely Sanu Ram Mandal has stated that on 08.09.2008 at 9 a.m. he was in his house when the accused Bablu, Dinesh, Umesh and Kamal came to his house and started abusing him; Dinesh gave blow of knife on stomach for which he received injury; when his son Jogendra Mandal (P.W.-9) came then Dinesh and Kamal caught his son and gave knife blow. This version has been duly recorded in the appellate court’s judgement and is matching with the evidence of the P.W.-1 from the records received from the concerned court. So far as other victim namely Jogendra Mandal, son of the informant is concerned, he was examined as P.W. 9 and he also supported the place, time and manner of occurrence and stated that he received injury by knife caused by Dinesh and fully supported the incident. He has stated that accused Dinesh, Umesh, Bablu and Kamal abused his family members and he along with his father objected to their acts, then the accused persons committed the offence. Dinesh lashed with knife gave blow to his father by which his father received injury in his stomach and Dinesh also gave knife blow to him (P.W.-9) and he received injury on his waist.

¶28

3

¶29

13. There are three eye witnesses to the occurrence which are P.W. 3 brother of Jogendra Mandal, P.W. 4 wife of informant and P.W. 5 wife of Jogendra Mandal.

¶30

P.W. 3 while supporting the entire prosecution case stated that Bablu and Kamal caught hold of Jogendra Mandal, and Dinesh gave knife blow to Jogendra Mandal due to which he suffered injury in stomach and when his father came for help Dinesh again gave blow by knife and his father received injury. P.W. 4 is wife of the informant. She has stated that Kamal and Bablu caught hold of her husband Sanu Ram Mandal (P.W.1) and Dinesh gave blow by knife and when her son i.e. Jogendra Mandal (P.W.- 9) rushed for help then Dinesh gave blow by knife to her son also. She identified the petitioners. P.W.5 who is the wife of Jogendra Mandal she also claimed to be eye witness and stated that accused Kamal and Umesh caught her husband (Jogendra Mandal) and Dinesh gave blow by knife by which her husband got injury on stomach and when he rushed for help, again knife blow was given and injury was caused.

¶31

14. The learned trial court after considering the evidences on record with respect to the petitioners so far as the incident is concerned, has recorded in paragraph no.15 as follows:

¶32

“15. After perusal the evidence of P.W.1 informant, P.W.3 son of informant, P.W.4 wife of informant, P.W. 5 wife of injured Jogendra Mandal and P.W. 9 Jogendra Mandal (son of informant) supported the case of prosecution on the point of date, time and place of occurrence. All these witnesses are eye witnesses of this case and specifically disclose the name of accused/petitioners as well as specifically disclosed that accused Dinesh given injury by blow of knife by which they received injury on person. P.W. 1 specifically stated that Bablu and Kamal caught him and Dinesh given blow by knife. He further stated that Bablu present and provocate the accused/petitioners to cause injury. P.w.9 also the injured of this case and specifically supported the version of P.W. 1 informant. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 & P.W. 5 eye witnesses of this case and support the case of prosecution as well as the evidence adduce by the P.W. 1 & P.W. 9 P.W. 3 P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 present at the time and seen the whole occurrence. Hence, I find that all these witnesses are trustworthy and natural and reliable in the eye of law.”

¶33

4

¶34

15. The learned trial court recorded finding in paragraph 21 with respect to the incident as follows:

¶35

“21. After scrutinization of evidence of prosecution witnesses injured (P.W. 1 & P.W. 9) as well as independent witnesses P.W.2, P.W. 6, P.W.7, P.W.8 & P.W.10 and eye witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5 I find that all these witnesses reliable, trust worthy and cogent their evidence up to the mark and specifically adduced evidence about the implication and involvement of accused/petitioners. There is specific evidence in deposition of witnesses that accused Dinesh alongwith Bablu, Kamal and Umesh given injury by knife on person. All these witnesses specifically identified the accused about their acts as well as stated that injury sustained by knife, hence, there is no doubt about the involvement of accused/petitioners in the occurrence.”

¶36

16. Thereafter, the learned trial court recorded the evidence of P.W.

¶37

12-the doctor and recorded its finding in paragraph 23 as follows:

¶38

“23. After perusal the evidence of Doctor I find that injury as stated by the P.W.1 & P.W.9 corroborate by the witnesses P.W.12. The injured specifically stated that accused caused injury by knife which proved by prosecution by examination of Doctor. Hence, there is no doubt that accused/petitioners falsely implicated in this case. P.W.3, P.W. 4 & P.W.5 also stated that injury sustained by the injured caused by knife. P.W.2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W.8 & P.W.10 also stated that they have seen the injury received by P.W.1 & P.W. 9 on his chest and stomach caused by the knife. I think these evidence itself proved that injury sustained by the injured caused by sharp cutting weapons knife. P.W. 11 (I.O.) of this case identified requisition of injury report of P.W. 1 & P.W.9 Ext. mark 3 and 3/1 disclosed that injury received on person was caused by sharp cutting weapon like knife. I think all these oral and documentary evidence proved and corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W. 9 on the point of injury. The P.W. 12 Doctor also examine and prove Injury report which ext. marks 4 & 4/1. Hence, I think prosecution proveits case u/s 324 IPC.”

¶39

17. This Court finds that the learned trial court has scrutinized the materials on record and convicted all the four accused persons for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC. This Court finds no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the conviction of the petitioners.

¶40

18. The learned appellate court also considered the materials and recorded its finding and upheld the conviction of the petitioners.

¶41

5

¶42

19. The learned appellate court also considered the contradictions in the evidences from the side of the prosecution but recorded a finding that such contradictions were not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. The learned appellate court recorded that from the evidence coupled with the medical evidence, the entire incident stood proved against all the four accused persons and upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

¶43

20. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence at the stage of revision in absence of any perversity.

¶44

21. This Court also finds that the conviction of each of the petitioner is based on evidence against them which are primarily the evidence of the injured witness and/or eye witness. The learned courts have found the evidences of the eye witnesses and injured witnesses, reliable and have accordingly convicted the petitioners. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, no ground for perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the judgments passed by the two courts could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

22. This Court finds that the victims as well as eye-witnesses have supported the case and the learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidences on record, has convicted the petitioners. The learned appellate court has also considered the materials on record and recorded findings in paragraph no.11 of the judgment. The doctor has been examined and he has clearly stated that the nature of injury was caused by a sharppointed object. The injury report is corroborative to the incident as narrated by the victims and the eye-witnesses. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the learned appellate court. The learned trial court recorded after considering the evidences that ‘injury as stated by the P.W.1 & P.W.9 corroborate by the witnesses P.W. 12 (P.W-12). It has been held that P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5 also stated that injury sustained by the injured caused by knife and P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 & P.W.10 also stated that they have seen the injury received by P.W.1 & P.W.9 on his chest and stomach caused by the knife. P.W.11 (I.O) identified requisition of injury report of P.W.1 & P.W.9 Ext. mark 3 and 3/1 disclosed that injury received on person was caused by sharp

¶46

6

¶47

cutting weapon like knife. The learned court concluded that all oral and documentary evidence proved and corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.9 on the point of injury. The P.W.-12 Doctor also examined and prove injury report which ext. marks 4&4/1 and held that the prosecution proved the case u/s 324 IPC.

¶48

23. This Court finds that both the learned courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have returned concurrent findings convicting all the petitioners. The contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-1, which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not fatal to the prosecution case inasmuch as there are other eye-witnesses to the incident, who have fully supported the case.

¶49

24. Section 324 of IPC is quoted as under: -

¶50

“ Section 324 : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means:- "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

¶51

25. So far as the argument of the petitioners with regard to Section 324 of IPC is concerned, this Court is of the view that causing of grievous hurt is not a condition precedent for conviction under Section 324 of IPC. The requirement is causing of hurt by dangerous weapon which includes sharp cutting weapons, and in the present case, hurt has been caused by sharp cutting weapon, i.e. knife. Rather Section 325 of IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and Section 326 IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons which includes sharp cutting weapons.

¶52

26. This Court finds that the petitioners have been rightly convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 324 of IPC. The judgment of conviction does not call for any interference.

¶53

7

¶54

27. This Court finds that in the impugned orders, nothing has been mentioned with regard to the previous conviction of the petitioners. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2008 and the petitioners have faced long drawn litigation, the sentence of the petitioners under Section 324 of IPC is modified and reduced to one year with fine of Rs.25,000/- each to be deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgement to the learned trial court. In case the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioners would serve the sentence as already awarded by the learned courts.

¶55

28. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶56

29. The aforesaid fine amount is directed to be given to the two victims (P.W-1 and P.W-9) equally as victim compensation after due identification.

¶57

30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

¶58

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶59

Saurav/-

¶60

8

Kamal Mahato and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Mahato and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupai Manjhi Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Shushama Devi Alias Sushma Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akil Khan Alias Aqil Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyaban Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand