Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 271 of 2004
1.Arjun Mandal
2. Nakul Mandal
3. Basudeo Mandal
Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Sukar Mandal
4.Sukar Mandal S/o late Bhola Mandal
All residents of village Kulahriya, P.S-Madhupur, Sub division
Madhupur, District-Deoghar ...... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
——–
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP
——-
Oral Judgment in Court
10/Date:03rd January, 2025
This Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.271 of 2004 has been filed on
behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 16.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial Case
No.104 of 2000 by Sri Nalin Kumar, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar by which the
Appellant No.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and
Basudeo Mandal have been convicted for the offence under
Sections 325/34 and sentenced to undergo RI for five (05) each
and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand) each.
However, the Appellant No.4-Sukar Mandal has been
convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and he
has been directed to be released on probation upon executing
and entering into a bond of peace and good conduct with his
own sureties of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year before the
court below under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
1
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Sukar Mandal
“Bhaisur” of the informant on 30.05.1999 at about 8 A.M.
asked her husband Sanichar Mandal that one of his trees has
been cut-down by somebody and he suspects that he might have
done so. Upon this, her husband replied as to why he will cut-
down his tree, but accused Sukar Mandal started abusing and
threatened that if he does not tell truth he will be killed and
during altercation between two brothers her nephew Arjun
Mandal, Basudeo Mandal and Nakul Mandal variously armed
with Lathi arrived and started abusing and assaulting her
husband. Upon seeing her husband being assaulted she tried to
save him and upon which, the accused persons also assaulted
her by Lathi, due to which she sustained head injury and blood
started oozing out and all three of them also assaulted her by
Lathi on her right wrist, left shoulder, legs and back.
3. At the outset, Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that although the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and
not sustainable in law. However, she is not pressing the appeal
on merit as more than 25 years have passed from the date of
occurrence and the appellants and the informant are Gotia and
closed relatives and hence, lenient view may be taken in favour
of the appellants.
It is further submitted that she is not pressing the appeal on
behalf of the Appellant No.4-Sukar Mandal. It is further
submitted that the appellants are also ready to compensate the
informant by paying reasonable compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. It
is submitted that the informant is a lady and her right hand was
2
fractured and she sustained head injury and hence necessary
order may be passed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it reveals
that the informant-Puniya Devi had lodged FIR against the
appellants on 31.05.1999 for the offences under Sections 341/
323/307/504/325/34 of the IPC for the occurrence taking place
on 30.05.1999 at around 8.00 A.M in the morning.
6. It transpires that the police, after completing investigation,
had submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 04.09.1999
before the learned S.D.J.M (in-charge), Madhupur for the
offence under Sections 341/323/325/504/307/354/34 of the IPC
and thereafter the learned S.D.J.M had taken cognizance against
the appellants under Sections 341/323/325/504/307/354/34 of
the IPC on 06.09.1999.
7. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
8. The charges were framed against the appellants on
15.09.2000 by Sri Govind Prasad Srivastava, then learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Deoghar under Sections 341/34,
323/34, 325/34, 307/34 and 504/34 of the IPC and to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution in support of its case, got examined nine
(09) witnesses, who are as follows:
(i) P.W-1 is Sahdeo Mandal,
(ii) P.W-2 is Sahdeo Thakur,
(iii) P.W-3 is Sanichar Mandal,
(iv) P.W-4 is Lalu Mahto,
(v) P.W-5 is Somar Mahto,
(vi) P.W-6 is Raju Thakur,
(vii) P.W-7 is Puniya Devi i.e. the informant,
(viii) P.W-8 is Dr. Bishwanath Das i.e. the Doctor and
(ix) P.W-9 is Shivsankar Prasad i.e. the I.O.
3
10. The prosecution has got marked the following documents
in support of its case, which are as follows:-
(i) Exhibit-1 is the requisition of injury report of
informant-Puniya Devi,
(ii) Exhibit-1/1 requisition of injury report of Sanichar
Mandal,
(iii) Exhibit-2 is the endorsement on FIR and
(iv) Exhibit-2/1 is Formal FIR.
(v) Exhibit-3 and 3/1 are requisitions of I.O to the Doctor.
11. Thereafter the appellants were examined under section 313
Cr.P.C on 03.11.2003 and to which they denied the
circumstances put forth before them.
12. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was
marked on the behalf of the defence side.
13. Thereafter the learned Court below has passed the
impugned judgment and sentence on different counts as
mentioned above. Hence the present appeal.
14. It transpires that P.W-1 namely Sahdeo Mandal, P.W-2
namely Sahdeo Thakur and P.W-6 namely Raju Thakur have
been declared hostile by the prosecution and as such their
evidence are not relevant.
15. P.W-4-Lalu Mahto and P.W-5-Somar Mahto are the
hearsay witness. However, they have supported the prosecution
case to the extent of sustaining injury by the informant and they
had seen that the right hand of the informant was fractured but
they had not named the appellants for causing any overt act.
16. P.W-8 is Dr. Bishwanath Das, who has examined the
informant Puniya Devi and found the following injuries on her
person as follows:-
“(i) Acute tenderness with massive swelling over distal
part of the right forearm. Movements are restricted. X-
ray shows the fracture over distal part of shaft of right
ulna bone vide X-ray Plate no.nill, Rahul X-ray clinic
Thana Road, Madhupur dt. 31st May, 1999.
4
(ii) Lacerated wound 2″ x ¼” into muscle deep red in
colour, posteriorly on left side perital region of scalp.
One inch away from A.P. Mid-line.
(iii) Lacerated wound 1″ x ¼” x muscle deep red in
colour transversely placed posteriorly on right perital
bone of scalp. 1 and ½” away from A.P. Mid-line.
(iv) Acute tenderness over chest.”
Opinion-Injury no.(i) is grievous in nature caused
by hard and blunt substance such as Lathi. Injury nos.(ii),
(iii) and (iv) are simple in nature caused with hard and
blunt substance. Age of injury is assessed to be within 30
hours.
On the same day, the Doctor examined Sanichar Mandal
(i.e. P.W-3) and found the following injuries on his person:-
“(i) Bruise 4″ x 1” red in colour with acute tenderness
over left side of loin,
(ii) Multiple abrasion marked over left side of back
with tenderness,
(iii) Acute tenderness and swelling on posterior part of
left leg and
(iv) Acute tenderness on right shoulder.”
Opinion-All above injuries are simple in nature
caused with hard and blunt substance such as Lathi.
Age of injury is assessed to within 30 hours.
He has proved the injury report of the injured
persons marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively.
However, the Court below while signing the injury report
has marked it differently as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 due to laches on
the part of the office clerk concerned.
17. So far as evidence of P.W-3-Sanichar Mandal is
concerned, it would appear that he also supported the
prosecution case by saying that he was assaulted by Sukar
Mandal by Lathi and when his wife tried to save then she was
assaulted by all the appellants namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul
Mandal, Basudeo Mandal and Sukar Mandal, due to which her
right hand was fractured and she sustained further injury on her
body and had become unconscious. Thereafter he had gone to
5
Police Station and from where he was sent to the Hospital and
fardbeyan of his wife was recorded.
During cross-examination, he stated that he had also
sustained 3-4 Lathi blow but he could not say as to how may
lathi blow was sustained by his wife as he had fled away to save
his wife after being assaulted by the appellants.
Thus, P.W-3 has also supported the prosecution case on
the point of injury sustained by himself and his wife.
18. P.W-7 is the informant-Puniya Devi, who has stated that
an altercation took place on the point of cutting tree by her
Bhaisur Sukar Mandal and when her husband protested and
stated that they have not cut the tree then both of them were
assaulted by the appellants and her hand was broken due to blow
given by Nakul Mandal-Appellant No.2 whereas Arjun Mandal-
Appellant No.1 had also assaulted on her shoulder and leg and
her Bhaisur (i.e. Sukar Mandal) exhorted to kill her. She was
also assaulted by her Bhaisur when she had fell down.
Thereafter they had gone to the Police Station and she was
treated by Doctor.
During cross-examination, she admitted that she had not
tried to flee away and she sustained injury while she was
standing and thereafter she had gone to Madhupur Police
Station. She further stated that Nakul Mandal had assaulted her
in the wrist of right hand due to which her right hand was
fractured.
19. Therefore, on perusal of injury report and evidence of
P.W-7 and P.W-8, it would appear that she had sustained
fracture on her right hand.
20. P.W-9 is Shivshankar Prasad who is the I.O of this case
and has stated about the institution of the FIR and for getting the
6
injured person examined by the Doctor and he proved the
endorsement on FIR as well as formal FIR marked as Exhibit-2
and Exhibit-2/1 respectively.
During cross-examination, he stated that he had not seized
any blood from the earth and none of the injured had given the
blood stained cloth.
21. Although the investigation of the I.O. is not so proper but
he has supported the prosecution case on the point of injury
sustained by the informant.
22. However, during course of trial, the X-ray Plates and the
opinion of Doctor on X-ray report had not been brought on
record.
23. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the Appellant
Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and Basudeo
Mandal is altered from Section 325 IPC to Section 324 of the
IPC. However, considering the fact that more than 25 years have
passed and as such they can be given the benefit of Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
24. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which reads as under:-
“4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on
probation of good conduct. – (1) When any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the
Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion
that, having regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the character of
the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of
good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the Court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment
direct that he be released on his entering into a bond,
with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence
when called upon during such period not exceeding three
years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release
of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his7
surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the Court exercises
jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live
during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the
Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of
the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the
Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the
offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing that the
offender shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period,
not being less than one year, as may be specified therein,
and may in such supervision order impose such
conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision
of the offender.
(4) The Court making a supervision order under sub-
section (3) shall require the offender, before he is
released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to
observe the conditions specified in such order and such
additional conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the
Court may, having regard to the particular
circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a
repetition of the same offence or a commission of other
offences by the offender.
(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-
section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and
conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one
copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the
sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.”
25. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, the
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul Mandal and
Basudeo Mandal are directed to be released giving the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and as such the
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to be released on execution of
bond of Rs.5,000/- for a period of one year before the learned
court below and they are also directed to pay compensation of
Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) to the informant-Puniya Devi
within a period of eight (08) weeks from today in the Court of
Sri Nalin Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-V, Deoghar/ or his Successor Court..
8
The Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul
Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are further directed to appear and
receive sentence when called upon for a period of one year and
in the meantime, the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal,
Nakul Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are directed to keep the
peace and be of good behaviour.
26. It further reveals that learned counsel for the appellants has
not pressed the instant appeal on behalf of Appellant No.4 as he
has already furnished the probation bond for a period of one
year.
27. Thus, this appeal is dismissed so far as Respondent no.4 is
concerned.
28. The Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Arjun Mandal, Nakul
Mandal and Basudeo Mandal are directed to deposit Rs.20,000/
(Rs.Twenty Thousand) one lump sum before the Court of Sri
Nalin Kumar, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-V, Deoghar/or his Successor Court and the same
may be disbursed by the Successor Court of Sri Nalin Kumar to
the informant-Puniya Devi by informing her through the process
of Court as well as D.L.S.A, Deoghar and deputing the P.L.V of
the concerned area.
29. Thus, this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.271 of 2004 is allowed in
part with the observation as mentioned above.
30. Let the L.C.R along with the copy of this judgment be sent
back before the Court of Sri Nalin Kumar, then learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Deoghar/or his
Successor Court and also to learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Deoghar at once for its compliance.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
9