Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 197 (JHR)

Bharat Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-31

RAJESH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. As per the report of Officer-in-Charge of the Sarath police station, the appellant no. 8, namely, Gopi @ Gopi Singh has died during pendency of the present appeal. 2. Accordingly, the appeal as against the appellant no. 8, namely, Gopi @ Gopi Singh stands abated. 3. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2006 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 307/1994 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been sentenced for one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month for the offence u/s 148 of the IPC. Further they have been sentenced for six months R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence u/s 323/149 of the IPC and in default thereof, further R.I. for one month. Further they were sentenced for two years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/-for the offence u/s 324/149 of the IPC and in default thereof, further R.I. for three months. 5. Sarath P.S. Case No. 109/1993 has been registered on 29.09.1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 307 of the IPC on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Hiro Mahto (P.W.-2). As per allegation, on 22.09.1993 at about 7 AM while the informant and his mother were working in the field, the appellants came there armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the informant and his mother due to which they sustained injuries. 6. On completion of investigation, the appellants have been charge sheeted to which cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of sessions and ultimately, charge has been framed against the appellant under Section 147, 148, 307/149 & 341 to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether eight witnesses have been examined. 8. Finally, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 & 324/149 of the IPC and maximum punishment awarded in aforesaid sections are of two years and a fine of Rs.2,500/-which has been awarded for the offence under sections 323 and 324 read with section 149 of the IPC respectively. 9. 8. Finally, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 & 324/149 of the IPC and maximum punishment awarded in aforesaid sections are of two years and a fine of Rs.2,500/-which has been awarded for the offence under sections 323 and 324 read with section 149 of the IPC respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants without assailing the judgment of conviction has argued that the incident is of the year 1993. The trial has been concluded in the year 2006 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2020. There was a land dispute between the parties and the entire family member of the appellant had been roped in by alleging that some were armed with lathi and only one appellant, namely, Gopi @ Gopi Singh (appellant no. 8 herein) was armed with tangi, who died during pendency of the present appeal, which has been affirmed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Sarath police station by filing affidavit. 10. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. From perusal of the record, it appears that there is land dispute between the parties and various litigation is going on between them. The injuries caused are simple in nature and none of the injuries have been found grievous. 13. Considering the year of dispute and period of litigation, the sentence is converted into the fine only. 14. Since, all the appellants are close relatives and as such the fine amount as a lump sum is imposed upon all the appellants and the appellants are directed to deposit the fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) before the court below within three months from today, which shall be disbursed in favour of the injured/their legal heirs. 15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2006 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 307/1994 is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. Since these appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. 17. The appeal stands partly allowed.