Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1377 (JHR)

Mahadeo Tana Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.08.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.1997, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 652 of 1993 (T.R. No. 282 of 1997), by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on the date of the incident the accused persons and the villagers had assembled in the Akhara near Primary School of the village. It is alleged that all of them had called the informant and his family members and they were told that due to practicing witchcraft the village God has became angry and that was the reason diseases were spreading in the village. It was alleged that to appease the village God an amount of Rs. 2500/- from each of the persons were demanded. It is alleged that on inability having been shown they were threatened and on the next day Rs. 3000/- was arranged by keeping the grain and crops mortgaged. Further allegation has been levelled that for the rest amount a weeks’ time was granted. It is said that due to fear of assault for not being able to arrange the rest amount the First Information Report was instituted being G.R. Case No. 652 of 1993. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken and charge was framed trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 Birsa Tana Bhagat has supported the occurrence and has stated that an amount of Rs. 5000/- was demanded from each for damages on account of the disease spreading in the village due to practicing of witchcraft. He has deposed that Naru and Birendra were kept confined and were released only after the demand was met. This witness has further stated that money was paid to the Mukhiya who handed over the same to petitioner no. 7. He has deposed that Naru and Birendra were kept confined and were released only after the demand was met. This witness has further stated that money was paid to the Mukhiya who handed over the same to petitioner no. 7. PW-2 Naru Bhagat was one of the persons who was kept confined and was released only after the amount was paid and he has supported the said fact at the time of his evidence. PW-3 Budhram Bhagat has also stated on similar line to what has been stated by PW-2. PW-4 Birendra Bhagat is the informant who has stated that the accused persons had demanded an amount of Rs. 2500/- for performing puja. He has stated that he and others were kept confined till the money was arranged. He has further stated that Judi was given one week time to arrange the money but when she failed the matter was reported to the Police. This witness and Naru have jointly given Rs. 5000/- to the Mukhiya who in turn had handed it over to the petitioner no. 7. PW-5 Dale Bhagat is the brother of the informant who has supported the prosecution case. PW-6 Judi Bhagatain is one of the victims who was given one weeks’ time to arrange the money but when she failed the matter was reported to the Police. PW-7 Somra Oraon has also supported the prosecution case. PW-8 Birsai Pahan has been tendered by the prosecution. PW-9 Krishna Ram is the Investigating Officer who had submitted charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation. The prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioners were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Gumla for the offences punishable u/s 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 1997 which however was dismissed on 23.08.2004. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case of extortion is made out as the informant and others were merely penalized in a village meeting. It has been submitted that basically the dispute which had occurred had been settled and the same cannot be said to be extortion committed by the petitioners. 6. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case of extortion is made out as the informant and others were merely penalized in a village meeting. It has been submitted that basically the dispute which had occurred had been settled and the same cannot be said to be extortion committed by the petitioners. 6. The evidence of the witnesses clearly reveals how on the pretext of appeasing the village God the amount was demanded from the victims and some of the victims were also confined till part payment was made. “Today the world has become a global village with the advancement of technology but still many parts of the world resort to medieval practices. This may be because of inadequacy of infrastructure, illiteracy and various other factors. Surprising indeed it is that such practices are still prevalent in isolated parts of the State. The present case is a glaring example of a village cocooned from the broader aspects of thinking and the comfort of learning.” 7. Adverting back to the facts of the case the evidence of the informant PW-4 has been virtually supported by all the witnesses barring PW-8 and PW-9. The meeting which was held was for extorting money from the victims and it cannot be said that the victims were penalized and therefore no case of extortion is made out. The manner in which the victims were kept confined till part payment is made and to continue with such medieval practice is indeed deplorable. 8. Be that as it may since there are consistent and corroborative evidence on the part of the prosecution the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, this application fails so far as the challenge which has been made to the judgment of conviction is concerned. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1993 and have also remained for some time in custody out of a maximum sentence of six months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 10. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1993 and have also remained for some time in custody out of a maximum sentence of six months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 10. In such circumstances, therefore, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.