Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
009 INSC 1170
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
009 INSC 1170
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Four accused persons appealed after being convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. [1] The trial court had convicted eleven of fourteen accused persons based on test-identification-parade and trial evidence and had imposed life sentences. [2] On appeal, the High Court acquitted five accused persons and granted sentence-related relief to others. [2] After dismissal of their appeal, the present appellants were taken into custody and remained imprisoned for approximately one year. [3]

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the appellants’ sentence should be reduced in light of their ages, the passage of twenty-eight years since the offence, the relatively small value of the property taken, and their individual roles in the dacoity. [3][4][5]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

  • The appellants sought leniency because the property taken consisted only of Rs 2,860 in cash, one lota, and one glass. [3]
  • Counsel emphasized that Ram Sunder Mahto, Ram Lagan Mahto, Bindeshwar Mahto, and Ram Ekbal Mahto were respectively 78, 73, 68, and 58 years old. [3]

State’s Submission

  • State counsel pointed out that two persons had sustained firearm injuries during the dacoity. [5]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court concluded that the appellants deserved lenient treatment after considering the overall circumstances, particularly that twenty-eight years had elapsed since the offence and that the appellants had suffered its consequences throughout that period. [4]

Although two persons had sustained firearm injuries during the dacoity, the individual who handled the firearm—Arun Kumar Singh, original accused A-2—had been convicted but had not appealed. [5] The evidence indicated that the appellants might have been present during the dacoity, but they had not personally injured any witness. [5] This distinction in their individual participation justified reducing their sentence to three years. [5]

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE. The Court reduced the appellants’ sentence to three years’ imprisonment. [5][6]

The appellants’ bail bonds were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence; otherwise, the court concerned was required to issue non-bailable warrants for their arrest. [6] The opinion establishes no stated broader implication beyond the sentence modification applicable to these appellants.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Ram Sunder Mahto And Others v. State Of Bihar .

    V.S Sirpurkar, J.— This appeal is filed by the four accused persons who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

    2. Considering their identification in the test identification parade and the evidence led before the trial court, the trial court convicted eleven persons out of fourteen accused persons and awarded life sentence for their offence. These eleven accused persons having appealed before the High Court, the High Court allowed the appeal of five persons, namely, Panchu Mahto, Bilas 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 imprisonment which they had already undergone. Two other accused were let off on undergone sentence.

    3. 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 that the loot was relatively insignificant as it was only of Rs 2860 cash, one lota 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.

    4. Considering the overall circumstance, we are of the opinion that the accused persons deserve lenient treatment. In that, we have considered that twenty-eight years have already elapsed since the offence took place and the accused persons are suffering for all those twenty-eight years.

    5. 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 firearm. However, we are informed that the person who had handled firearm though was convicted has not filed any appeal 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.

    6. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant-accused are cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender within two weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence failing which the non-bailable warrants shall be issued against them by the court concerned for their arrest.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ram Sunder Mahto And Others v. State Of Bihar .
    (Oct 7, 2009)