Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1096 (JHR)

Hanif Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-08-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. All the four appellants were charged for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Cod for assaulting Abdul Hamid Ansari. Rasid Ansari, Habib Ansari and others with an intention to kill them. They were further charged under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing theft of standing paddy crops of Abdul Hamid Ansari. The learned Trial Court, by impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2004 and 10.2.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1997, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code only and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 28.10.1996, at about 9.00 a.m., Kalim Ansari. Hanif Ansari, Rozauddin Ansari and Gambhir Ansari (appellants herein) were cutting the paddy from the field of the informant i.e. from Plot No. 546, Khata No. 82, Area 0.29 Acres of Village-Badhni, PS-Sisai, District- Gumla. The informant tried to stop the accused persons but, they chased him for assault. At this, the informant raised hulla and then on hearing his hulla. his son Rasid Ansari (PW-2), Hasib Ansari (PW-4), his daughter Shakila Khatoon (PW-2) and brother Nafruddin Ansari (PW-1) came to rescue him. The appellant Kalim Ansari assaulted the informant with sword resulting injury on his left finger and elbow. Appellant Hanif Ansari and Rozauddin Ansari assaulted the son of the informant Rasid Ansari (PW-2) with Balua resulting injury to his both hands and head. Appellant Kalim Ansari assaulted his daughter Sakila (PW-2) with Sikkel resulting injury to her head. Appellant Gaiiibhir Ansari assaulted his son Hasib Ansari (PW-4) with a danda resulting injury to him. Appellant Rozauddin Ansari assaulted his younger brother Nafruddin Ansari (PW-1) with Balua resulting injury to his left hand. According to the informant, the occurrence was witnessed by Kayum Ansari, Anwar Ansari and others. 3. The defence was complete denial of the allegations and of false implication. 4. In order to establish the charges, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution out of which, PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses who received injury in the said occurrence. 3. The defence was complete denial of the allegations and of false implication. 4. In order to establish the charges, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution out of which, PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses who received injury in the said occurrence. PW 7 Abdul Hamid Ansari is the informant himself who also received injuries in the occurrence PW 5 Kayum Ansari and PW-8 Anwar Ansari are the witnesses who reached the place of occurrence after hearing hulla, PW-6 is the Investigating Officer whereas, PW-9 is the doctor who examined the injured persons. On behalf of the defence also, three witnesses were examined. 5. Mr. Amitabh Kumar Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued in defence of the appellant and by referring the entire evidence led by the prosecution, has submitted that though the prosecution was not been able to establish the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts but even then they have wrongly been convicted. Her further submitted that in fact, the informant party were the aggressor and they were cutting paddy which were grown by them on the land in question which belonged to them. He further submitted that there were vital contradictions in the evidence of PWs and therefore, their evidence should not be relied upon. 6. Mr. Amitabh Kumar Tiwary has taken me to the evidence of each and every witnesses of the prosecution. After going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the injured witnesses namely PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 have given a vivid description of the occurrence and have clearly stated about the part played by each of the appellants in the said occurrence such as, PW-1 Nafruddin Ansari has specifically stated that he was assaulted by Kalim Ansari, the appellant No. 4 by means of Balua resulting in some injury on his hand. The Doctor (PW-7) has found the injury on the hand of the said witness PW1. Similar is the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4 and 7 who have all been assaulted by the appellants by means of respective weapons which they were holding and the said fact find fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The Doctor (PW-7) has found the injury on the hand of the said witness PW1. Similar is the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4 and 7 who have all been assaulted by the appellants by means of respective weapons which they were holding and the said fact find fully corroborated by the medical evidence. From the evidence, it appears that the appellant Kalim Ansari was holding a sword and he assaulted the informant by means of sword, whereas, the appellant No. 1 Hanif Ansari and appellant No. 2 Rozauddin Ansari assaulted Rasid Ansari (PW 3) by means of Balua resulting in injury on his head and hand, appellant Kalim Ansari also assaulted Nafruddin Ansari (PW-1) and Sakila (PW-2) whereas Gambhir Ansari assaulted Hasib Ansari (PW-4). 7. In this way, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the fact that the accused persons were having common intention to assault the informant party and in execution of their common object, they assaulted PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. Now the question is as to whether the assault made by these appellants would come under purview of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence under any other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Upon consideration of the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 read with the evidence of the Doctor, I am of the view that the offence committed by the appellants would come under the purview of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 326 under which, they have been convicted by the Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and findings above, the conviction under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code is altered and converted into a conviction under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that now the appellants have been found guilty for the offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court also requires to be modified. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in 1996 i.e. about 10 years back and the appellants have already suffered the rigors of the trial and they have also remained in custody for some time and as such, in my view, it is not desirable to send them to jail again. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in 1996 i.e. about 10 years back and the appellants have already suffered the rigors of the trial and they have also remained in custody for some time and as such, in my view, it is not desirable to send them to jail again. Therefore, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each and in default, they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each, If the fine is deposited by the appellants, the same shall be paid Lo the informant. With this alteration conviction and reduction in sentence stated above, this appeal is dismissed.