IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1137 of 2010
1. RAMCHANDRA MAHTO SON OF LATE MAHABIR MAHTO
2. SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO SON OF LATE MAHABIR MAHTO
3. AMRENDRA KUMAR @ BHOLA MAHTO SON OF LATE SATYA
NARAYAN MAHTO.
4. SAKALDEO MAHTO SON OF LATE NAGO MAHTO.
5. SHRAWAN KUMAR MAHTO SON OF LATE SURAJ MAHTO
6. RAJARAM MAHTO SON OF LATE SURAJ MAHTO
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BATHAULI, P.S.- BARAUNI,
DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
For the petitioners : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha no. 3. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
-----------
3 10.08.2010 Heard both sides.
Rule confined to question of sentence.
Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State.
With the consent of parties, the application is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself.
In respect to an occurrence that had taken place on
17.7.1995, the petitioners herein were charged under sections
147, 149, 447, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution, in order to prove charge(s), produced and examined
six witnesses. P.W. 1 (son of the informant) and P.W. 4
(informant) received injuries of diverse nature at the hands of the
petitioners in the occurrence. They have consistently supported
the prosecution case. The doctor (P.W. 5) has proved their injury
reports at the trial. Learned trial court on consideration of the
materials placed on record found all of them guilty for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 and 337/149 of
Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01
2
year under Sections 147/149, S.I. for 01 month under Section
447, S.I. for 06 months under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code
and R.I. for 01 year under Section 324 IPC.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, they
preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 70/2006. Learned
appellate court on a reconsideration of the evidence brought on
record found that the charge under Section 324 IPC was proved
only against petitioner no. 6 (Rajaram Mahto). Others were
accordingly acquitted of the said charge under Section 324 IPC.
The conviction and sentence recorded against them by the
learned trial court under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 337 was,
however, confirmed. The conviction of R.I. for 01 year recorded
against petitioner no. 6 (Rajaram Mahto) was also upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
date of occurrence in the present case is 17.7.1995. Petitioners
were made to undergo the ordeal of trial for about 11 years. It is
next contended that they have not been found previously
convicted by the trial court. It is further highlighted that the
petitioners and the prosecution side are residing in the same
village. The trial court found them aged between 22 years to 55
years. It is next contended that they all belong to one family. On
these submissions, it is contended that the petitioners deserve a
lesser punishment.
Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned two courts
3
below which cannot be said to be perverse particularly in view of
the fact that all the three injureds consistently supported the
prosecution case.
I have considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties. The occurrence had taken place in the year
1995. Petitioners were finally convicted by judgment and order
passed in the year 2006. For all these years, they were made to
undergo rigours of trial and thereby face circumstances which
must have exasperating effects on them. This is a relevant
consideration which has to be borne in mind while inflicting
sentence for the charges proved at the trial. I am thus satisfied
that a lesser punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, shall sub-serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, the
maximum sentence awarded for diverse sections on petitioner
nos. 1 to 6 is reduced to S.I. for 08 months. So far petitioner no.
6(Rajaram Mahto) is concerned, his sentence awarded under
Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for 01 year is reduced to R.I. for
09 months only. Other part(s) of sentence remain untouched.
With this modification in sentence, the application is
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj