Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 632 (JHR)

Bhuktu Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Neither anybody appears on behalf of the petitioners nor anybody appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2. However, Md. Asif Khan, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is present. 2. Since this application is of the year 2001, the same is being disposed of in terms of material available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2001 passed by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 143 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.1998 passed by Sri K.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Dumka in P.C.R. Case No. 70 of 1995 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, 2 months and 6 months respectively have been subsequently modified by the learned appellate Court and directed the petitioners to execute bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- by each of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation as it appears from the complaint is that the petitioners had felled a Simal tree standing on plot No. 979 which the complainant claimed to be belonging to her and had also taken away the said tree after cutting the tree into blocks. 5. After examination of the witnesses by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has charged the petitioners under Sections 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the petitioners have committed the offence of rioting, assault and theft. 6. Thereafter, Cr. Appeal No. 143 of 1998, preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka (S.P.) on 17.10.2001 by confirming the judgment of conviction, but the sentence passed by the learned trial Court was modified by extending the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed the petitioners to execute bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- by each of the petitioners for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- by each of the petitioners for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. During the course of trial, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, whereas, defence has also examined one witness. It appears from the evidence of PW 1-Sujan Kisku, PW 2-Chaturgun Mahli and PW 4-Panchanand Mahton that they are independent and reliable witnesses and these witnesses have clearly stated about felling of a Simal tree from the plot of the complainant and the petitioners after cutting the tree into blocks had taken it away. Before both the Courts below, the defence had taken plea that the petitioners had right over the property in question, but the same has been rightly disbelieved in absence of any document produced by the defence. In view of consistent evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. The learned appellate Court after considering the facts of the case, modified the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners. 8. In view of what has been stated above, so far as judgment of conviction is concerned, I am not inclined to entertain this application. However, with respect to modification of sentence passed by the learned appellate Court is concerned, the order of sentence passed under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is further modified and the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 given in favour of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 143 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code shall also be extended for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. Application dismissed.