Sumeshwar Mahto 7 Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Court No.3, Deoghar in Sessions Case Nos.249 of 2001/ 197/02 arising out of Sarba (Sonarathardi) P.S. Case No.110 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.874 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 148 and 324/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 148 of IPC and further undergo S.I. for 3 years for the offence under sections 324/149 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶35

Factual Matrix:-

¶36

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.12.2000 at about 12:00 noon, while the informant was tending his cattles in the north side of his village, he saw the cattles of Nuneshwar Mahto and Tilo Mahto were grazing his paddy crops. Upon which, the informant requested them to derive their cattles out from the paddy field, then, other accused persons came there and started abusing him. It is further alleged that Bhukhan Mahto, appellate No.7, Baidyanathh Mahto, appellate No.11 and Ramdeo Mahto, appellant No.4 assaulted him on his head, hand and legs with lathi and caused injuries. Upon hearing hulla , the brother of the informant and his wife, Goriya Devi rushed to save him but they were also assaulted by the appellants. The accused persons fled away as the locals gathered there.

¶37

On the basis of aforesaid information, Sarba (Sonarathardi) P.S. Case No.110 of 2000 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148,

¶38

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2005

¶39

2

¶40

2026:JHHC:16727

¶41

149, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case Nos. 249 of 2001/ 197/02 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶42

Prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in this case namely:

¶43

P.W.1- Bhola Mahto

¶44

P.W.2- Tilu Mahto

¶45

P.W.3 -Hublal Mahto

¶46

P.W.4- Amrit Mahto

¶47

P.W.5- Goriya Mahtwain

¶48

P.W.6 -Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh

¶49

P.W.7- Ramesh Kumar Yadav

¶50

P.W.8- Wakil Mahto

¶51

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary

¶52

evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:-

¶53

Ext.1- Injury report of Wakil Mahto

¶54

Ext.1/a -Injury report of Bhola Mahto

¶55

Ext.1/b -Injury report of Amrit Mahto

¶56

Ext.1/c -Injury report of Goriya Mahatwain

¶57

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2005

¶58

3

¶59

2026:JHHC:16727

¶60

Ext.2- Fardbeyan of Wakil Mahto in the writing and signature of A.S.I. Nagendra Singh

¶61

Ext.2/1 -Initial of M.A. Khan on fardbeyan

¶62

Ext.2/2 -Initial of Balmiki Sharma on fardbeyan

¶63

On the other hand, the defence has examined only one defence witness, D.W.1, Shambhu Prasad Yadav and apart from it, following documentary evidences i.e. Ext.A- Fardbeyan of Kanthi Mahto in the writing and signature of S.I. Krishna Singh, Ext.A/1 -Endorsement of S.H.O. Sarwan on the Fardbayan of Kanthi Mahto, Ext. B- Formal FIR of Sonarajthani P.S. Case No.109 of 1994, Ext.C - Certified copy of Sonarathadi P.S. Case No.109 of 1994 and Ext.D- Certified copy of L.E. Case No.30/91-92 have also been adduced. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to village politics.

¶64

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are three injured persons in this case and all of them have sustained simple injuries like abrasion, laceration and bruises. It is further submitted that the scuffle took place between the parties in a sudden manner on the question of grazing the cattles in the field of paddy crop of the informant and there was no previous enmity between them, negating any motive to assault the informant party in a pre-planned manner. Learned counsel submits that the injury report of the inured persons finds corroboration from P.W.6, Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh. Therefore,

¶66

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2005

¶67

4

¶68

2026:JHHC:16727

¶69

there is no objection regarding conviction of the appellants for the offences under section 148 and 324/149 of IPC but learned trial court has recorded no special reasons for declining to extend the benefit of sections 3/4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. In fact, it is the first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted in any other case. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶70

Submission on behalf of the State:-

¶71

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the appellants and no previous conviction has been found against them but considering the serious nature of offence, learned trial court has declined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and is fit to be dismissed.

¶72

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶73

10.I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of

¶74

occurrence. It appears that the dispute has broken out between the parties on the ground of grazing the paddy crops of the informant by the cattles of the appellants. The injuries sustained by the three injured persons were found to be simple in nature, which has also been corroborated by the injury report. The occurrence is of the year 2000 [[[ Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2005

¶75

5

¶76

2026:JHHC:16727

¶77

and more than two decades have passed. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons by the trial court, to which the appellants are entitled.

¶78

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellants, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants, for which the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

¶79

12.In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousands) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

¶80

If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond.

¶81

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2005

¶82

6

¶83

2026:JHHC:16727

¶84