SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Arun Kumar Mandal @ Arun Mandal, son of Khirod Mandal - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1022 of 2006
Decided on : 04-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

The court emphasized the importance of adjusting sentences based on mitigating factors, allowing fines instead of imprisonment when appropriate, along with ensuring victim compensation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) - Conviction for assault and atrocities - The appellants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fines under the IPC and SC/ST Act. Appellant Khirod Mandal died during pending of the appeal, which was abated. The appeal was confined to sentence, leading to a modification based on mitigating factors, including no prior criminal history and time elapsed since the offence. The court replaced both imprisonment and fine, allowing a nine-month period for fine payment instead. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Appeal - The focus must be on a just and reasonable sentence rather than mere imprisonment when mitigating circumstances are present. (Paras 16-19)

Table of Content
1. abatement due to death of appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. overview of prosecution case and defense stance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments focused on sentence rather than conviction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court's reasoning and findings on sentence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. modification of sentence and conditions for fine payment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. final order dismissing appeal with modifications. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2006 passed in Special Case No. 06 of 2003 arising out of P.C.R Case No. 541 of 2002 by the court of learned Special Judge-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989; R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.200/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 days u/s 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and S.I. for 3 months u/s 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, has informed that the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal and, therefore, it is prayed that the instant criminal appeal be abated with respect to the deceased appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal and let his name be deleted from the array of parties in the cause title of the memo of appeal.

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is present and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State stating therein that the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020 during pending of this appeal and a detail report to that effect has also been received from the Officer-in-Charge of the Godda (Muffasil) Police Station dated 22.09.2022, which is annexed as Annexure-A series to the instant affidavit.

4. From perusal of the report (Annexure-A series) it is found that appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal S/o Late Nathu Mandal resident of Bishunpur, P.S. Godda, District – Godda has died and to that effect a death certificate has been issued by the Mukhia of Ghat Manjwara Gram Panchayat, Block and District-Godda by which it appears that the appellant Khirod Mandal has died on 28.11.2020. Rests of the appellants are alive.

5. In view of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, since the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal has died during pending of this appeal and no close relatives or legal heirs have come forward to pursue the appeal on behalf of the deceased appellant, this appeal is abated as respect to the appellant no.1 Khirod Mandal. Let his name be deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal and rest of the appellants be renumbered.

6. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the complaint of the complainant Hirday Mirdha being Complaint Case No. 541 of 2002, stating therein as under:

On 08.09.2002 at about 9 P.M. the complainant heard hulla in the house of brother Jagdeo Mirdha and approached there immediately and saw that all the accused persons namely Khirod Mandal (since deceased), Arun Mandal, Hero Mandal , Kamlesh Mandal and Sidash Mandal were beating Jagdeo Mirdha and when the complainant asked them about the cause of occurrence, he was surrounded by the accused person and was assaulted by them by a "khanti’ on his head and also by "lathi’. It is further alleged that when the complainant‟s brother Sukhdeo Mirdha, his mother Most. Tetri and niece Champa came to save his life, then the accused Sidhash Mandal caught the hair of Champa Devi and dragged her. The accused Arun Mandal called him “Sala Dom” saying that his house will be set on fire and his whole family will be burnt to ashes.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top