Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 663 (JHR)

Ashok Rai v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2006-05-17

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5.9.1999 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 2 months. The learned trial Court however, acquitted the appellant for the charge under Sections 307, 326, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short the prosecution case is that on 7.10.1996 at about 9 a.m. when the informant was irrigating his paddy field, the appellant came near him carrying spade in his hand and told him that fertilizer was flowing from his field and, therefore, he is not permitted to take water through his field and the appellant asked the informant to stop the irrigation. The informant did not listen to his request, due to which the appellant lost his temper and assaulted the informant with a spade, which he was holding, on the chest of the informant causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, the informant raised hulla and then it is said that the people from nearby field rushed to the place of occurrence and then the accused-appellant fled away from there. 3. The defence case was of total denial of the occurrence and of false implication. 4. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 341, 307, 326/504, IPC and thereafter, the appellant was put on trial for the said charges. 5. In order to establish the charge, altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. PW-1 is Bhushan Pd. Tiwary. he has stated in his evidence that on hearing hidla, he came to the place of occurrence and he saw that the appellant was fleeing away from the place of occurrence by holding a Kudal in his hand. This witness also saw that at that time the informant was laying on the field in injured condition. PW-2 is Niranjan Rai. he has stated in his evidence that on hearing hidla, he came to the place of occurrence and he saw that the appellant was fleeing away from the place of occurrence by holding a Kudal in his hand. This witness also saw that at that time the informant was laying on the field in injured condition. PW-2 is Niranjan Rai. Me has also stated in his evidence that on hearing hulla he immediately came to the place of occurrence and saw the informant in injured condition and the informant disclosed to him that it was the accused Ashok Rai, who had assaulted him by means of spade. PW-3 Ghuran Rai is the informant and he is injured witness. He has categorically supported the case of the prosecution and his statement made in the FIR. PW 4 is Tiro Singh, he has stated that he was working in his field, which was situated near the place of occurrence and he saw that some altercation was going on in between the accused Ashok Rai and the informant Ghuran Rai. He went to the place of occurrence on hearing the hot exchange of words between them and then in the meantime the accused Ashok Rai assaulted the informant Ghuran Rai on his chest by means of spade, due to which Ghuran Rai sustained bleeding injuries on his chest and he fell down on the ground. PW-5 is the doctor, who examined the injuries on the person of the informant and he proved his injury report. From the evidence of the doctor it appears that the following injuries were found on the person of the informant. Sharp cut on chest left side appear part from sterna to 3rd rib-5" x 1 x 1 /2 cm. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer, who after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. One Court witness namely, Raghu Nandan Prasad was also examined to prove the Ext. 4 and Ext. 5. 6. On the basis of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant finding him guilty for the offence under Section 324, IPC and acquitted him from the other charges as stated in the earlier paragraphs. 7. 4 and Ext. 5. 6. On the basis of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant finding him guilty for the offence under Section 324, IPC and acquitted him from the other charges as stated in the earlier paragraphs. 7. After arguing for a while, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in view of the evidence of the informant and the other PWs there is nothing much to argue on the merit of the appeal and, therefore, he is not seriously challenging the conviction passed by the trial Court but he submitted that since the occurrence took place in the year 1996, i.e., about 10 years ago and the appellant has undergone the ordeal of protracted trial for about 10 years including the pendency of this appeal and he has already remained in custody for about three months and, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of two years may suitably be modified and the appellant may not be sent to jail again after such a long lapse of time. 8. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and also on perusal of the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324, IPC. So far as the sentence of two years R.I. for the said offence is concerned, I find some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and 1 also feel that after such a long lapse of time the appellant should not be sent to jail again in view of the nature of dispute in between the parties. 9. Since the appellant has already remain in custody for about three months and, as such, the sentence of two years R.I. is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- in default he shall undergo R.I. for a period of six months. If the fine, so imposed, is deposited by the appellant (he same shall be paid to the victim injured. 10. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Appeal dismissed.