Parmeshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

-------For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. Order No. 12/ Dated: 06^th April, 2026

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. for the state.

¶18

Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.1992 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 184 of 1989 / T.R. No. 862 of 1992 , whereby and whereunder the petitioner no. 01 has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 143, 147 & 379 of the

¶19

2026:JHHC:9653

¶20

Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 143 & 427 of the I.P.C and R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner nos. 02 to 06 have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 143 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶21

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging that the said land was purchased by father of the complainant in the year 1929. After the death of his father about 40 years back, the complainant came into possession of the said land and erected boundary wall surrounding the said land. A well was also excavated and a brick kiln for manufacturing of the bricks was established by the complainant. The complainant also started growing crops and vegetables. On the date of occurrence, the petitioners including co-accused persons forcibly armed with weapons came to the said land and destroyed the crops and bricks worth Rs. 50 was stolen and some part of the boundary was also damaged due to land dispute between the parties.

¶22

On the basis of above, complaint case No. 184 of 1989 was filed on 23.10.1989, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 427 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code against 14 accused persons.

¶23

After the inquiry, the cognizance was taken against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 143, 427 & 379 of the I.P.C. on 12.03.1991. Charges

¶24

2 | P a g e

¶25

( Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2017)

¶26

2026:JHHC:9653

¶27

were read over in Hindi and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶28

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 143, 427 & 379 of the I.P.C and sentenced them accordingly.

¶29

Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 1992 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1992.

¶30

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners without entering into the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentences awarded to petitioners. It is further submitted that due to land dispute, altogether 14 persons were arrayed as accused on the basis of complaint case instituted in the year 1989. The learned Trial Court has held the petitioner nos. 02 to 06 guilty for the offence under Section 143 & 427 of the I.P.C and awarded them imprisonment for one month, and the learned Trial Court held the petitioner no. 1 guilty for the offence under Section 143, 427 & 379 of the I.P.C. and awarded him imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C., out of which, all the petitioners have remained in custody for 18 days. The simple allegation is that bricks worth Rs. 50 was stolen and some part of the

¶31

( Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2017)

¶32

3 | P a g e

¶33

2026:JHHC:9653

¶34

boundary was damaged due to land dispute between the parties. The petitioners have suffered agony of trial of the case for more than three decades and have sufficiently been punished. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be modified and reduced to the extent of custody undergone by them.

¶35

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed but has fairly admitted that it is a case of the year 1989 based on complaint case between the parties. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners recorded by the Court below. Therefore, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed.

¶36

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the guilt of petitioner no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 143, 427 & 379 of the I.P.C. and petitioner nos. 02 to 06 for the offence under Section 143 & 427 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.

¶37

So far sentence awarded to the petitioner no. 01 for two months for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C and to the petitioner nos. 02 to 06 for one month for the offence under Sections 143 & 427 of the I.P.C. is concerned, admittedly all the petitioners have sustained

¶38

4 | P a g e

¶39

( Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2017)

¶40

2026:JHHC:9653

¶41

substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 18 days during course of trial.

¶42

It appears that the alleged occurrence is of the year 1989 and more than three decades have passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and have also served sentence for 18 days. There is land dispute between the parties and the dispute of stealing of brick worth Rs. 50 is trivial in nature.

¶43

Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by petitioners appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them.

¶44

In view of above discussion and reason, impugned judgment of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.

¶45