Bhola Das Alias Sishir Das Alias Shishir Das And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 500 of 2016

¶2

------

¶3

Bhola Das @ Sishir Das @ Shishir Das, Son of Late Dulal Chandra Das, resident of Khakri Para, P.O. & P.S.Parsudih, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶4

Sunil Das @ Sunil Kumar Das, Son of Late Kashi Nath Das, resident of Domjuri, P.O. & P.S. – Jadugora, District – East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶5

Pintu Das, Son of Sri Lakhi Kant Das, resident of Chota Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. – Parsudih, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶6

.... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Amrit Das, Son of Paddo Lochan Das, resident of Village Domjodi, P.O. – Narwa Pahan, P.S. – Jadugoda, District – Singhbhum East.

¶10

.... .... Opp. Parties

¶11

------

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate. Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate.

¶15

------

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

Order No. 13/Dated : 10^th May, 2024

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015 passed by

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ghatshila in G.R. No. 316 of 2011 arising out of Jadugora P.S. Case No. 30 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 260 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 354 of the I.P.C. thereby sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., S.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were further directed to undergo S.I. for one month and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently except the sentence in default of payment of fine.

¶22

3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision in nutshell is that informant along with Haldhar Das and Arjun Munda went to Patamda and return to home at about 9:30 P.M. He has altercation with owner of Scorpio No. JH-05AE7634 for land dispute. Earlier Pintu Das by his mobile no. 9234924633 has called him for talking regarding the land dispute. After returning home, when the informant was taking dinner, all of a sudden, all the three accused namely, Bhola Das, Pintu Das and Sunil Das under influence of liquor holding lathi and danda entered in his house and by dragging him by neck with a soft towel beaten him. Pintu Das pushed his mother and also assaulted his wife and untied the saree of his wife. Bhola Das pushed his sister-in-law (bhabhi).

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

4. On the aforesaid information, Jadugora P.S. Case No. 30 of 2011 has been instituted against all the three accused for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504, 354, 34 of the I.P.C.

¶25

5. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet Accordingly, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 452 and 354 of the I.P.C. and the accused were put on trial. For the content of charge, the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶26

6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to go imprisonment as aforesaid.

¶27

7 . Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners have preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 2016 before the court of Sessions, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2016.

¶28

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties and it is also admitted that some scuffles were also going on prior to the incident. There is specific allegation against the petitioners that they have pushed woman in the said

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

occurrence, due to which, offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. has been attracted, but nature and ambit of Section 354 of I.P.C. does not warrant to attract such type of incident within its purview. Hence, conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. is absolutely illegal and not sustainable under law. So far conviction for the offences under Sections 323 / 452 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the house of both the parties are adjacent and it was the first offence of the petitioners and there is no previous conviction of any offence. Both the trial court as well as appellate court has failed to record any specific reason for not extending benefit of Section 3 / 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners, for which they are entitled. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined himself towards extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶31

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, but with regard to benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, is concerned, there is no dispute that there is no previous conviction of the petitioners and it was their first offence.

¶32

10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as judgment passed by the appellate court. From perusal of overall materials

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

available on record, it is crystal clear that the genuineness of the occurrence, under which, the incident took place certainly does not warrant application of offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. as the intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence is lacking in this case.

¶35

11. It is also obvious that there is no previous conviction of the petitioners and the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has failed to record any special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.

¶36

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the petitioners, their antecedent and character, I feel inclined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶37

13. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent that the petitioners are directed to be released on Probation Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court with a condition to be maintaining peace and to be of good behaviour till one year and put under supervision of the concerned Probation Officer of the district. Petitioners is directed to appear before the trial court within a period of three months and file Probation Bond as directed above.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

14. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to sustain substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

¶40

15. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.

¶41

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/-NAFR

¶42

Page 6 of 6

Bhola Das Alias Sishir Das Alias Shishir Das And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Das Alias Sishir Das Alias Shishir Das 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

Umesh Kumar Kapri Vs the State of Jharkhand

H K Sarangi Hari Krishna Sarangi Vs State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation

Mukesh Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Utkarsh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Kumar Bhargava Alias Dhananjay Sharma Alias Dhananjay Kumar Bhargav Vs the State of Jharkhand