Birsa Oraon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

1. Both the criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of

¶26

Page 1 of 9

¶27

sentence dated 16.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 730 of 2000, whereby the petitioners were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo further S.I. of six months and R.I. of three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo further S.I. of six months. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently and period of detention already undergone, if any was ordered to be set off against the sentence imposed. However, the sentence passed by the learned trial court was modified to the extent that the petitioners would have to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo S.I. of one month and S.I. of one year and fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and in default of fine, they should have to undergo S.I. of two months. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently and period of detention already undergone, if any was ordered to be set off against the sentence imposed.

¶28

Page 2 of 9

¶29

2. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the land of the nomenclature “Doka Kudar” as it is known in the common parlance under Khata No. 222 under Khewat No. 5/2 situated in village Pandra appertaining to the Plots. 610, 630 and 631 ad-measuring 0.04, 0.15 and 2.63 acres total 2.82 acres is recorded as “Bakast Bhuihari Land” in the name of one Gandu Oraon who happens to be the grand father of the complainant in the Rivisional Survey Record of Rights. It is alleged that after the grandfather of the complainant, the land is question was inherited by his father Sukra Oraon and his uncle Dharo Oraon.

¶30

It is further alleged that the uncle of the complainant Dharo Oraon along with his five sons, namely, Prem Oraon, Melkhos Oraon, Novel Oraon and Dan Oraon and Sunder Oraon are permanently residing in the District of Hazaribag since after the Revisional Survey and accordingly the complainant with his brother Raisan Oraon are looking after and managing the cultivation of the family lands which includes the present land in question.

¶31

It is further alleged that the accused persons are the owners of land recorded in Khewat No. 5/1 of the same village and have got no concern with the land in question of the complainant under Khewat No. 5/2. It is further alleged that

¶32

Page 3 of 9

¶33

during the recent survey operation the accused no. 2 Sukra Oraon, as arrayed in the memorandum of complaint who passed away during the pendency of this case, filed a “Tanaza” claiming that the land of Khewat No. 5/2 was his land stating that the father and uncle of the complainant were not allowing him to possess the said land, but however the claim of this accused was dismissed by the survey authorities. It is further alleged that thereafter this accused did not take any legal step either for the correction of the entry in the record of rights or for the recovery of possession and thus, the family of the complainant is thereby coming under an uninterrupted possession over the land for a pretty long period of time.

¶34

It is further alleged that as usual in the year 2000 also, the complainant and his brother cultivated paddy crop over the land peacefully which grew and was ripe for harvestation. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e., 17.11.2000 day Friday in between 08:00 am to 03:00 pm, all the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons arrived and forcibly and dishonestly harvested the crop and carried it away. It is alleged that earlier also in the year 1984, some of the accused persons committed similar offence for which the complainant had filed Complaint Case No. 307 of 1984, which resulted in the conviction of those accused persons vide

¶35

Page 4 of 9

¶36

judgment order dated 16.12.1986 which was upheld in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1988. It is alleged that the complainant approached the police regarding the incident but there was no action.

¶37

3. Accordingly, the complainant presented the memorandum of complaint against total of 15 accused persons on 28.11.2000 before the learned CJM, which was registered and thereafter vide order dated 04.12.2000 transfer the case to the Court of JM 1^st Class, Ranchi for inquiry and disposal according to law. Thereafter, upon inquiry a prima facie case under Sections 147, 379 of the I.P.C. against all the accused persons were found, who were summoned accordingly. Accused Dhuchudhan Oraon, Sukru Oraon and Mango Oraon arrayed as accused no. 1 to accused no. 3 respectively in the memorandum of complaint, expired hence proceedings against them was dropped vide order dated 09.09.2005. Thus, 12 accused persons survived who caused their appearance and accordingly, charge under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. was framed against the above named 12 accused persons on 26.05.2008. The charge was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then during the course of trial one more accused Ladhuwa Oraon, arrayed as accused no. 11 in the memorandum of complaint, passed away and hence, proceeding was dropped

¶38

Page 5 of 9

¶39

against him vide order dated 13.07.2009. Therefore, trial court proceeded and passed the judgment against the 11 accused persons.

¶40

4. In course of trial, on behalf of complainant four witnesses were produced and examined, but only three were produced for cross-examination after charge. The case of defence was denial from the allegations and false implication.

¶41

5. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the concerned trial court and affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court, which has been assailed in this revision.

¶42

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgment of concerned trial court and the appellate court has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016 have remained in custody for a period of 02 months 05 days after dismissal of their appeal and they have surrendered on 25.04.2016 and thereafter, they were granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.06.2016 and after furnishing bail bond released on 29.06.2016. So far petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 259 of 2016 i.e. Jatru Pahan is concerned, vide order dated 29^th July, 2016, he was exempted from surrendering in terms of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

¶43

Page 6 of 9

¶44

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that out of one year’s imprisonment awarded to the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016, they have already undergone 02 months 05 days’ imprisonment after dismissal of he appeal and pendency of revision, as such, the petitioners have been adequately punished for the offences committed by them. Under such circumstances, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016 be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody.

¶45

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that so far petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 259 of 2016 is concerned, since he is aged about 86 years old and suffering from various ailments, it would not be appropriate to send him to serve sentence awarded to him.

¶46

9. Learned APP on behalf of the State has contended that so far conviction awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 & 379 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and pendency of the dispute since long, the prayer for reduction of sentence may be considered.

¶47

Page 7 of 9

¶48

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 and further modified by the learned appellate court and it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections 147 / 379 of the I.P.C. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision.

¶49

11. So far sentence awarded to the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016 is concerned admittedly out of one year’s simple imprisonment, they have sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 02 months 05 days’ after dismissal of appeal and during pendency of this revision.

¶50

12. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 259 of 2016 is concerned, he has been exempted from surrender on the medical ground.

¶51

13. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year 2000 and more than 23 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016 have also served sentence of about 02 months 05 days and the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 259 of 2016 is very old and suffering from various ailments.

¶52

Page 8 of 9

¶53

14. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 505 of 2016 appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them, as more than 23 years have elapsed. So far petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 259 of 2016 is concerned, in the interest of justice, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to fine of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months, failing which, petitioner shall undergo S.I. for 15 days.

¶54

15. In view of discussions and reasons, both the revision applications are dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.

¶55

16. Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.

¶56

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

¶57

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶58

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 26/06/2024 Sunil/-NAFR

¶59

Page 9 of 9

Birsa Oraon And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

Birsa Oraon And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Ashish Kumar Singh Alias Golu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Turi Alias Chhotan Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotu Ram Alias Ravi Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shekhar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manvel Khalkho Alias Chottu Vs the State of Jharkhand