Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 628 (JHR)

State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) v. Karu Pandit

2003-06-02

D.N.PRASAD

body2003
JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure oh behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with GR No. 1317 of 1992 (TR No. 180 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate though convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 506, IPC but the accused persons were released after due admonition as provided under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 3.9.1992 in between 7 to 8 am the accused persons were ploughing the land, which was given to them by the informant in exchange of his land. The informant went upon the land and raised protest on which accused persons abused him and wanted to assault him. On seeing this the informant fled away towards his house but the accused persons rushed to his house and assaulted him with lathi. The sister of the informant also came there to save him but she was also assaulted. 3. Accordingly, FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 354, 307, 379, 325 and 323. IPC. The accused persons/respondents appeared before the Court below and accordingly the charge was framed. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined. After hearing both sides, the Court below convicted the respondents, but released them after due admonition, hence, this appeal. 4. Though, the notice was duly affected against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/accused persons, none appeared on their behalf. 5. Ms. Anita Sinha, the learned APP appeared on behalf of the State and argued that there is sufficient material collected during trial and the learned Magistrate rightly passed the order of conviction but the accused were released, when there is specific allegation against all the accused persons/respondents that they had assaulted the informant and his sister with lathi causing injury on their persons. 6. Altogether eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. PW 1, Sahdeo, Turi stated in his Chief that the accused persons had assaulted Jageshwar with lathi and when his sister came for his rescue, she was also assaulted by the accused persons. He cannot say the khata number and plot number of the said land, which is said to be ploughed by the accused persons at the relevant time. PW 1, Sahdeo, Turi stated in his Chief that the accused persons had assaulted Jageshwar with lathi and when his sister came for his rescue, she was also assaulted by the accused persons. He cannot say the khata number and plot number of the said land, which is said to be ploughed by the accused persons at the relevant time. PW 2 also deposed that he had seen Jageshwar, his mother and sister tying in injured condition. Thereafter, he took them to their house. PW 3 also deposed that Jageshwar objected for ploughing the land to which the accused persons abused him and thereafter they assaulted with lathi and when mother and sister of Jageshwar came for rescue, they were assaulted by the accused persons. It is true that this witness is relative of the informant but he had seen the informant, his mother and sister in injured condition at the relevant time. He specifically deposed that he had seen the injury on the person of injured. 7. PW 4 also deposed that the accused persons assaulted Jageshwar with lathi and when his mother and sister came for rescue, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. In the same way, PW 5 supported the prosecution case as regards to assault to Jageshwar his sister and mother. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination giving any suspicion about the occurrence. PW 6, the sister of the informant being the eye- witness also supported the prosecution case and she narrated the incident very specifically claiming that accused Sukhdeo assaulted her brother with lathi on his head arid when her mother went for rescue she was also assaulted. She further deposed that she was assaulted by the accused Karu. She deposed in her cross-examination that she has been residing at her naihar. She also deposed in her cross-examination that Rajdeo, the informant was assaulted first and thereafter she was assaulted. PW 7, the mother of the informant deposed that accused persons assaulted Rajdeo with lathi and when she went for his rescue, she was also assaulted with lathi. She deposed in her cross-examination that the witnesses rushed to the spot after five minutes of the occurrence and she sustained injury on the back. PW 8, Rajdeo Pandit, the informant was examined under Section 311, Cr PC and he deposed that he objected for ploughing his land. She deposed in her cross-examination that the witnesses rushed to the spot after five minutes of the occurrence and she sustained injury on the back. PW 8, Rajdeo Pandit, the informant was examined under Section 311, Cr PC and he deposed that he objected for ploughing his land. Thereafter, the accused persons started assaulting him and when his mother and sister came for his rescue, they were also assaulted by the accused persons with lathi. He proved his fardbeyan, Ext. 1. He deposed in his cross-examination that he was assaulted by Sukhdeo. His mother and sister when came for his rescue, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. 8. The accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. 9. Obviously, all the witnesses including the injured being the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case and nothing has been adduced on behalf of the defence to make the prosecution case suspicious. Thus, it is evident that the trial Court after considering the evidence in detail passed the order of conviction rightly, which does not require for any interference. It is true that the trial Court passed the order of sentence applying the provisions as laid down under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released the accused person/respondents after due admonition. Obviously, there is no document or any evidence coming forward to show about any previous conviction of the accused persons. Thus, the Court below rightly passed the order applying the provisions of Section 360, Cr PC as the accused persons are the first offenders and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order of sentence as laid down under Section 360, Cr PC by releasing them after due admonition, which also does not require for any interference. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.