ATI LAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.2.2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -4, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1998 whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 148/323/324/504/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149 and 504/149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 10.8.1996 in the morning when the informant was working in his paddy field, he received information that Joytilal Mahto was obstructing the path way of his house by ploughing the same at which, he went there and asked Joytilal Mahto not to plough the land. At this, Joytilal Mahto abused him and then gave a Tang; blow causing injury on his head. The informant fell down in the ground and raised alarm at which, his family members arrived at that place. It was alleged that the accused persons namely Atilal Mahto, Gora Chand Mahto and Jaleshwar Mahto came with Tangi in their hands and the accused Suchand Mahto came with "Juwatt" whereas, the accused Churaman Mahto, Rajendra Mahto. Buniyad Mahto, Sristhidhar Mahto, Jitlal Mahto, Mathan Mahto and Noren Mahto came with lath; and started assaulting the informant party members causing injuries to them.

(3.) MR . Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing for a while, confined his arguments on the question of sentence only and he submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1996 i.e. about 10 years back and both the parties are closely related to each other being 'Gatias' and the occurrence took place due to a land dispute. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the injuries found were simple in nature, caused by the hard and blunt substance. He further submitted that the appellants have already remained in custody for about one month. In such a situation, he submitted that after such a long lapse of time, considering the nature of offence, the appellants should not be sent to jail again as they have been sufficiently punished.