Khirod Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

-----

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of Sri Anil Kumar Arya, learned Special Judge-cum-1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, Jharkhand)

¶5

1.Arun Kumar Mandal @ Arun Mandal, son of Khirod Mandal 2.Hira Lal Mandal @ Hero Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal 3.Sidash Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal

¶6

4.Kamlesh Mandal @ Kamlesh Kr. Mandal, son of Late Girdhari Mandal All are resident of Bishanpur, P.S. Godda (M), District-Godda

¶7

--- --- Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

04.03.2025 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of learned Special Judge-cum-1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989; R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and S.I. for 3 months u/s 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, has informed that

¶13

the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal and, therefore, it is prayed that the instant criminal appeal be abated with respect to the deceased appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal and let his name be deleted from the array of parties in the cause title of the memo of appeal.

¶14

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is present and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State stating therein that the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020 during pending of this appeal and a detail report to that effect has also been received from the Officer-in-Charge of the Godda (Muffasil) Police Station dated 22.09.2022, which is annexed as Annexure-A series to the instant affidavit.

¶15

4. From perusal of the report (Annexure-A series) it is found that appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal S/o Late Nathu Mandal resident of Bishunpur, P.S. Godda, District – Godda has died and to that effect a death certificate has been issued by the Mukhia of Ghat Manjwara Gram Panchayat, Block and District-Godda by which it appears that the appellant Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020. Rests of the appellants are alive.

¶16

5. In view of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, since the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal and no close relatives or legal heirs have come forward to pursue the appeal on behalf of the deceased appellant, this appeal is abated as respect to the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal. Let his name be deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal and rest of the appellants be renumbered.

¶17

6. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the complaint of the complainant Hirday Mirdha being Complaint Case No. 541 of 2002, stating therein as under:

¶18

On 08.09.2002 at about 9 P.M. the complainant heard hulla in the house of brother Jagdeo Mirdha and approached there immediately and saw that all the accused persons namely Khirod Mandal (since deceased), Arun Mandal, Hero Mandal , Kamlesh Mandal and Sidash

¶19

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

¶20

Mandal were beating Jagdeo Mirdha and when the complainant asked them about the cause of occurrence, he was surrounded by the accused person and was assaulted by them by a „ khanti’ on his head and also by „ lathi’ . It is further alleged that when the complainant‟s brother Sukhdeo Mirdha, his mother Most. Tetri and niece Champa came to save his life, then the accused Sidhash Mandal caught the hair of Champa Devi and dragged her. The accused Arun Mandal called him “ Sala Dom ” saying that his house will be set on fire and his whole family will be burnt to ashes. Due to injury on the head, the complainant was bleeding and he sustained injury near his eye also. It has further alleged that the accused Arun Mandal with intention to kill them gave two blows of „Khanti‟. The occurrence was witnessed by all the witnesses saving the life of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station from where he was referred to the Hospital by the Sub-Inspector. However, since no action was taken by the police for lodging the F.I.R., he filed the instant P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

¶21

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda examined three witnesses on S/A and thereafter took cognizance of the offence under Section 323/324/354 of the IPC and 3/4 of the SC/ST Act and lastly the case was committed to the Court of Sessions cum Special Court on 12.03.2003. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused persons by Learned Spl. Judge Godda under section 323/324 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Later on, the charge under section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been amended vide order dated 19.05.2006.

¶22

8. The defence in short was total denial of occurrence and false implication.

¶23

9. The charges were read over and explained to the accused / appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶24

10. The learned Trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

¶25

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

¶26

which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶27

11. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶28

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:

¶29

12. Learned defence counsel, at the outset, has submitted that the appellants do not want to argue this appeal on merit on the point of judgment of conviction and, therefore, he is confining his arguments only on the point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989; R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act, 1989 and S.I. for 3 months u/s 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned defence counsel has submitted that the offence has taken place as far back on 08.09.2002 and all the appellants have suffered the trauma and misery of criminal prosecution for a long period of time. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on record to show about criminal history of any of the appellants. It is also submitted that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again to the jail and the appellants are ready to pay any suitable fine as may be imposed by this Court by way of compensation to be paid to the victim- P.W.5 (Hirday Mirdha) or his legal heirs and therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellants to pass appropriate order for awarding sentence of fine instead of sentence of imprisonment.

¶30

Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.

¶31

13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that when the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit, then the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court be upheld against the appellants and under the facts and circumstances, a suitable order on the point of sentence may be passed.

¶32

4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

¶33

Appraisal & Findings

¶34

14. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the Trial Court Record.

¶35

15. In order to prove its case, prosecution has been able to examine altogether 7 witnesses who are as under:

¶36

P.W.1- Sukhdeo Mirdha

¶37

P.W.2-Jagdeo Mirdha

¶38

P.W.3 Chinta Mani Devi

¶39

P.W.4- Champa Devi

¶40

P.W.5-Hirday Mirdha

¶41

P.W.6-Bishnu Mirdha

¶42

P.W.7-Buddhinath Mirdha

¶43

16. Since the appellants do not want to argue this appeal in hand on merit on the point of conviction and want to confine their prayer only on the point of sentence, therefore, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of learned Special Judge - cum-1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, Jharkhand.

¶44

17. So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the occurrence took place as far back on 08.09.2002 and originally there were 5 appellants and one of the appellants namely Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal. Further, it is also found that over period of time all the appellants have reached their middle age and they have also suffered the rigor of the criminal case. It is also found that there is no criminal history against any of these appellants available on record.

¶45

18. Further, it is found that the doctor in this case has not been examined and therefore, grievous assault or injury has not been proved by the prosecution and the appellant has been convicted only for the offence punishable under section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act 1989 and in view of all these mitigating factors it appears that no useful purpose would be served by imposing the sentence of imprisonment upon the appellants and the ends of justice would be meted out if the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine instead

¶46

5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

¶47

of imprisonment.

¶48

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the order of sentence dated 29.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Special Case No. 6 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 541 of 2002 against the appellants is set aside and altered under all the three heads/ counts in a composite manner as under:

¶49

A. All the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

¶50

B. All the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/(Rupees Five Thousand) by each of the appellant by way of compensation to be given to the victim P.W.5. Hirday Mirdha

¶51

20. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of 9 months is given to each of the four appellants to pay the aforesaid fine and in default of payment of fine, each of the appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the victim/injured P.W.-5 Complainant (Hirday Mirdha), by way of compensation.

¶52

21. The learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine as said above by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law.

¶53

22. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.

¶54

23. The learned Trial Court is also directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the victim P.W.-5 (Hirday Mirdha) and on his appearance the said fine amount, if so, deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him. In case, the said victim P.W.5 is not traceable or not available or not found at the given

¶55

6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

¶56

address, or does not appear before the Court, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim or else, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Godda, if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Godda is directed to co-operate in this regard.

¶57

24. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed with modification in the order of sentence.

¶58

25. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and spirit.

¶59

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶60

A.Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 04.03.2025

¶61

7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006

Khirod Mandal And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khirod Mandal And Ors. v. 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

Gopal Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Haiwai Alias Ginesh Gupta Alias Dinesh Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prahlad Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Bipin Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand