Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 169 (JHR)

State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) v. Somra Ahir

2007-03-13

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.6.1999 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the accused persons/respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the night of 24.4.1988 one Jagmohan Ahir, father of the informant Arbind Ahir, was preparing food inside his house situated in Mauza Kendua Tola Paro Bringa district Gumla, when all of a sudden four assailants trespassed in the courtyard and started assaulting him. On the alarm raised by the Jagmohan Ahir, his two sons rushed to his rescue and then found that all the four assailants were armed variously. According to the informant, the respondent Bhutku Ahir and Somra Ahir were identified by them present there armed with lathi. The informant family resisted and during exercise of right to private defence, killed one unknown assailants. According to informant the respondents have called the unknown assailants to finish them because of land dispute between them: 3. The Bano police registered Bano P.S. Case No. 11 of 1988 under Sections 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against five persons including three named accused who were declared absconder during trial. The respondents were charged for offences under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the participation of these two respondents in the actual offence. According the respondents were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that in view of evidence available on record connecting the respondents in calling the unknown criminals who committed the offence they should not have been acquitted of the charges. The learned APP Mr. T.N. Verma, appearing for the State submitted before me that when the informant and other witnesses have specifically named the respondents to be present at the time of occurrence, the learned trial Court should not have given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. 5. I have carefully gone through the materials available on record. The learned APP Mr. T.N. Verma, appearing for the State submitted before me that when the informant and other witnesses have specifically named the respondents to be present at the time of occurrence, the learned trial Court should not have given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. 5. I have carefully gone through the materials available on record. The prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of their case. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are formal in nature proving the FIR, fardbeyan and article seized from the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 Jagmohan Ahir, P.W. 6 Bhuwan Bijendra Ahir, P.W. 7 Arbind Ahir, informant are eye-witness of the occurrence. According to them the respondents also participated in the assault. However, during cross-examination they admitted that there was a continuing land dispute between their families criminal and civil for ten years. It has come on record that the father of the informant has assaulted the aggressors resulting in death of one of them. According to P.W. 6 after the assault he saw the respondents fleeing away along with three others. He also admitted in cross-examination that he saw the respondents out side the courtyard but nowhere any allegation regarding participation in actual assault has been made. P.W. 7 has also asserted these things in para 6 that the respondents were standing out side and admitted that except the assailant who was killed by his father no body assaulted his father. 6. P.W. 8 is formal, P.W. 9 Churaman Ahir son of Jagmohan Ahir has admitted that these two respondents have not participated in the assault. P.Ws. 13, 14 have admitted that they were told about presence of these respondents at the time of the occurrence. The learned lower Court has considered all these aspects in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment. Accordingly the learned Court below came to hold that in view of the admitted enmity between the parties, the respondents deserves benefit of doubt. In the evidence on record, eye-witnesses of the occurrence have not asserted any overt act or actual participation by these two respondents in assaulting the injured persons at the time of the occurrence. It is also admitted fact that litigation and enmity continued at the time of the occurrence between the parties. The reasons provided by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment does not suffer from any apparent illegality. It is also admitted fact that litigation and enmity continued at the time of the occurrence between the parties. The reasons provided by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment does not suffer from any apparent illegality. 7. In the facts and circumstances, discussed above, I find that the impugned judgment does not require any interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.