Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 260 (JHR)

Gandur Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2017-02-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.04.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Gumla in Complaint Case No. 177 of 1990/T.R. No. 235 of 1997 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 147, 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively has been dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trail court has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. It has been stated that the petitioners have been implicated on account of bonafide land dispute and both the sides in fact have produced exhibited documents before the learned trial court to substantiate the contention that there is a land dispute existing between the parties. It has thus been submitted that the background leading to institution to the First Information Report has not been properly appreciated and in in such circumstance the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court be set aside. 4. Alternatively, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court does not interfere with the judgment and order of conviction since the petitioners have remained in custody for sometime and considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of trial since 1997 the sentence awarded to the petitioners be modified accordingly. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 6. It appears that a complaint case was filed by the complainant Dahru Oraon to the effect that the accused persons armed with the deadly weapons had dishonestly harvested the paddy crop of the complainant due to which a loss of Rs. 2800/- was sustained by the complainant. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 6. It appears that a complaint case was filed by the complainant Dahru Oraon to the effect that the accused persons armed with the deadly weapons had dishonestly harvested the paddy crop of the complainant due to which a loss of Rs. 2800/- was sustained by the complainant. The complaint having been filed an inquiry was conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. pursuant to which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 17.04.1997 the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Gumla has been pleased to convict the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1997 was dismissed on 09.06.2000 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla 8. It is not in dispute that the parties are an litigating terms with respect to the land in question for several years and documentary evidence has been brought on record by both the parties. Exhibit - 3 and Exhibit - 4 being the restoration application filed under the provisions of C.N.T. Act suggests that the complainant side was in possession of the land in question. The independent witnesses have stated about the aggression made by the petitioners since the complainant had transplanted the paddy crops every year which, however, had been harvested by the accused persons surreptitiously leading to institution of the case. 9. It appears that concrete findings of facts have been recorded by both the learned courts below and in view of the consistent evidence on the part of the prosecution having been brought forth no interference is necessitated in the impugned orders so far as the judgment of conviction is concerned. 10. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioners have remained in custody for some period after disposal of their appeal. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1990. Such circumstance definitely entitles the petitioners to a reduction in the period of sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1990. Such circumstance definitely entitles the petitioners to a reduction in the period of sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.