BABLU MARANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.7.2003 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal Nos. 57 of 1999/2 of 2003, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.99 passed by Sri P.N. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara, in G.R. Case No. 639 of 1994/T.R. No. 133 of 1999, has been allowed only in part by the Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the learned Trial Court had found the appellants guilty and had convicted them for the offences under Sections 144, 379, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for eight months for the offence under Section 144 I.P.C., R.I. for eight months for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Appellate Court below has acquitted the accused petitioners from the charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C., but has upheld their conviction for the offences under Sections 353 and 144 of the I.P.C. Learned Appellate Court below has also been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and has directed them to enter into the probation bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each alongwith one surety of the like amount for keeping peace and maintaining good behavior for a period of one year.

(2.) From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners were made accused in Kundahit P.S. Case No. 120 of 1994, corresponding to G.R. No. 639 of 1994, wherein there is allegation against the named accused petitioners as well as about 150 unknown persons to have formed unlawful assembly variously armed, and to have harvested the paddy crops from the lands in question using force, on which the informant Hawaldar Shivjee Tiwary was deputed for protection. It appears that upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and ultimately charge was framed against the petitioners by the Trial Court below for the offences under Sections 144, 341, 342, 353 and 379 of the IPC and upon the accused petitioners' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial.

(3.) Lower Court Record shows that five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, but the informant and the I.O. were not examined. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 144, 379 and 353 IPC, as aforementioned.