IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 831 of 2004

1.

Tripurari Mahto @ Yadav

2.

Sudama Yadav

3.

Shanker Mahto

4.

Radhey Mahto

5.

Karu Mian

……

Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

……

Respondent

-----

With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1412 of 2004

Ramdeo Mahato

……

Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

……

Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

-----

For the Appellants

: Mr. A.K.Choudhary, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, A.P.P

-----

05/Dated: 25/07/2019

Since both the appeals arose from the same impugned judgment of conviction

dated 24.04.2004 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions

Judge, FTC No.2, Deoghar in Sessions Case no.233/1994, they being heard together.

It appears that while assailing the impugned judgment the trial has convicted

the appellants U/s 147 IPC, which provides punishment for rioting. Section 147 IPC

reads as under :

147. Punishment of rioting : Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Simultaneously, the trial court has further convicted the appellant U/s 148

IPC, which reads as under :

148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon – Whoever is guilty of rioting

being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon

of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or

with both.

Learned counsel for the appellants while referring the evidence of P.W.5, who

is the informant of this case has submitted that the informant categorically stated

that appellant no.1 Tripurari Mahto @ Yadav had assaulted him with iron rod and

other accused/ appellants have assaulted him with lathi and the iron rod is not a

deadly weapon. So the learned trial court has committed error by convicting the

appellants U/s 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is further submitted that there was old enmity between the parties.

In that view of the matter, learned Addl. P.P. is directed to reply, if so advised,

in this regard.

List both the appeals on 13.08.2019.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Raman/