RAM SUNDER MAHTO AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

                      [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1126

                                                                     ;.-
A               RAM SUNDER MAHTO AND ORS.
                                v.
                        STATE OF BIHAR                                         ~



                (Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2003)
                        OCTOBER 7, 2009
B
         [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - s.395 - Dacoity- Loot of Rs.2860,
  in cash, one "Iota" and one glass - Fourteen accused - Two ·
c persons suffered fire-arm injuries - Four accused i.e. the
  appellants convicted by trial Court and sentenced to five years
  imprisonment - Dismissal of their appeal by High Court -
  Appellants thereafter taken into custody for about one year -
  On appeal, held: All appellants are in their old age and have
D already suffered for 28 years since the offence took place -       }




                                                                              -
  The loot was insignificant - Appellants did not cause any injury
  to any witness - They deserve lenient treatment - Sentence
  of appellants reduced to 3 years.

        In a case of dacoity involving loot of Rs.28601- in
E cash, one Iota and one glass, two persons suffered fire-
  arm injuries. There were fourteen accused. Four accused
  i.e. the appellants were convicted by the trial court uls.395          .~
  IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The
  conviction was upheld by the High Court. After dismissal
F of the appeal, the appellants were taken into custody and                   ..
  remained behind bars for about one year.

       In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for
  consideration was whether considering that the loot was
G relatively insignificant and that all the appellants were in
  their old age and had already suffered for 28 years after
  the offence took place, they deserved lenient treatment.

       Disposing of the appeal, the Court

H                              1126
                   RAM SUNDER MAHTO AND ORS. v. STATE OF                    1127
                                  BIHAR

     -1              HELD: 28 years have already elapsed since the                   A
                offence took place and the accused persons are
                suffering for all those 28 years. During course of the
                dacoity, two persons suffered injuries by fire-arm.
                However, the person who had handled fire-arm though
                was convicted has not filed any appeal, i.e. the origins.I           B
                A-2. Considering the evidence, it is found that all these
                accused persons might have been present during the
      •         dacoity but have not caused any injury to any witnesses •
                In that view of the matter, the sentence is reduced to
                three years. The appellants are directed to surrender to
                serve out the remaining sentence. [Paras 2 and 3] [1128-
                                                                                     c
                C-F]

                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
                No. 503 of 2003.
          ...
                                                                                     D
                    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.8.2002 of the High
                Court of Judicature at Patna, in Crl. Appeal No. 645 of 1987.

                     Shekhar Prit Jha, C. Selvaraj for the Appellants.

                     Anuj Prakash, Gopal Singh for the Respondent.                   E

                     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                     V.S.SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the four
                accused persons who have been convicted for the offence
                punishable under Section 395, Indian Penal Code (in short            F
                'IPC') and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
                for five years. Considering their identification in the test
                identification parade and the evidence led before the trial court,
                the trial court convicted 11 persons out of 14 accused persons
                and awarded life sentence for their offence. These 11 accused        G
     ~          persons having appealed before the High Court, the High Court
                allowed the appeal of five persons namely Panchu Mahto, Silas
                Baitha, Thaga Mahto, Deo Narain Mahto and Ganeshi Mahto
                and acquitted them. The High Court took the view that they being
                very old, they should be sentenced only to suffer rigorous           H
;>
    1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
                                                                                 ~



A imprisonment which. they had already undergone. Two other                ~

  accused were let off on undergone sentence.

       After the dismissal of the appeal, these accused persons                  "
  were taken into custody and remained behind bars for about
  one year. Learned counsel for the appellant argues before us
B that the loot was relatively insignificant as it was only of Rs.               1'

  2860/- cash, one Iota and one glass. It is also pointed out that
  now the accused persons namely Ram Sunder Mahto, Ram
  Lagan Mahto, Bindeshwar Mahto and Ram Ekbal Mahto are
  78, 73, 68 and 58 years of age respectively .
c
        2. Considering the overall circumstance, we are of the
  opinion that the accused persons deserves lienent treatment.
  In that, we have considered that the 28 years have already
  elapsed since the offence took place and the accused persons
D are suffering for all those 28 years. It was pointed out before      ;
  us by the State counsel that during the course of the dacoity                 ,,••
  two persons have been injured and have suffered injuries by
  fire-arm. However, we are informed that the person who had                   .____
  handled fire-arm though was convicted has not filed any appeal,
E i.e. Arun Kumar Singh, the original A-2. Considering the
  evidence we find that all these accused persons might have
  been present during the dacoity but have not caused any injury
  to any witnesses. In that view of the matter we reduce the
  sentence.which has been awarded by the_High court to that of
  three years.
F
        3. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. The bail
  bonds of the accused appellants are cancelled. The appellants
  are directed to surrender within two weeks from today to serve
  out the remaining sentence failing which the non-bailable
G warrants shall be issued against them by the concerned court
  for their arrest.

    B.B.B.                                    Appeal disposed .of.