Umesh Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand

Ambuj Nath, J

Petitioner Umesh Mahato has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 13.10.2015 passed by Shri Girish Chandra Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 94/2012, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2012 passed by Shri A. Kachhap, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in G.R. No. 51/2010 arising out of Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 01/2010, holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under sections 323 and 341 I.P.C and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I for one month for the offence under section 341 I.P.C and S.I for six months for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant Manoj Kumar Mahato alleging therein that on 15.01.2010 at about 5.00 pm, petitioner had assaulted his four year old son Umesh Mahato, due to which, he fainted.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offences under sections 341 and 323 I.P.C.

Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2010 and the petitioner has not been convicted in any other case. As such, he may be given the benefit of provisions of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P., submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly held the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other on the fact that the petitioner had assaulted the son of the Informant.

From perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the Informant Manoj Kumar Mahato has been examined as P.W-5. He has supported his case as mentioned in his written report. He has stated that on 15.01.2010 at about 5.00 pm, petitioner had assaulted his four years old son, due to which, he fainted. Other prosecution witnesses have corroborated the statement of the Informant and they have supported the prosecution case that the petitioner had assaulted the son of the Informant, due to which, he fainted.

From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove its case for the offences under sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly held the petitioner guilty of the offences under sections 341 and 323 I.P.C.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been convicted in any other case. Offence under section 341 and 323 I.P.C is punishable by less than two years. Considering this fact, I am inclined to extend the benefit of provisions of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Petitioner Umesh Mahato shall be released after due admonition.

This revision application is partly allowed with modification in the sentence. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.