Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 241 (JHR)

Samsuddin Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-04-04

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1994 whereby and whereunder appellant Samsuddin Ansari stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 stand convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 28.8.1993, one Islam Ansari was trying to get rain water in his paddy fields by diverting such water from village road towards his fields situated by the side of the paddy fields of the appellants. According to informants Rahman Ansari, his brother has put an obstruction on Kulhi, the village road so that rain water flowing towards south may be diverted in his paddy fields, when the appellants arrived there and objected why he was trying to get water diverted towards his fields as the appellants wanted the same water for his paddy fields. During this objection, appellants started assaulting his brother, in which appellant Samsuddin Ansari gave a blow with spade in his hand resulting in grievous injury on him and other appellants assaulted his brother with lathi rod and fist. Villagers arrived and rescued Islam Ansari from further assault. 3. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the police, on the basis of which, Nirsa Police Station Case No. 166 of 1993 under Sections 341, 323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The police submitted charge- sheet after completion of investigation against the four persons under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court framed charge against the four appellants on January 24, 1997 under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code only. The appellants pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court after considering the materials on records found and held appellant Samsuddin Ansari guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them separately as stated above. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court after considering the materials on records found and held appellant Samsuddin Ansari guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them separately as stated above. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court has accepted the prosecution version without evaluating the contradictions available in the statements of different witnesses. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the injuries found on Islam Ansari were not sufficient to hold that charges under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code made out. According to him, the incident took place at the spur of moment without having any intention and now parties are living in peace. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the conviction is maintained, bitterness may further crop up between the parties. According to learned Counsel, all the injuries were found simple in nature and such incidents are petty in nature for which the appellants have already suffered trial and harassment for nearly fourteen years. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the very genesis of the occurrence is doubtful, as the witnesses are not claiming to have seen the incident. Therefore, in absence of the investigating officer, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. 5. I have gone through the materials on records. The incident of marpit has been supported by witnesses on records. However, it has further come on record that this occurrence took place on the question of disputed diversion of water in paddy fields. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are hearsay witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 5 gave a different version vide paragraph 5 that when he stated that appellant Samsuddin Ansari was trying to get water in his fields when occurrence started the marpit took place. P.W. 8 Dr. P.N. Prasad has stated that injures were simple in nature on Islam Ansari vide Ext. 2. Injured Islam Ansari as P.W. 9 himself has admitted during cross-examination that he was assaulted variously by other appellants but he has not named Ajad Ansari as one of the assailants. He denied that he has cut the ridge of the field of appellant Samsuddin Ansari and he further admits vide paragraph 10 that he fell down in Kulhi. 2. Injured Islam Ansari as P.W. 9 himself has admitted during cross-examination that he was assaulted variously by other appellants but he has not named Ajad Ansari as one of the assailants. He denied that he has cut the ridge of the field of appellant Samsuddin Ansari and he further admits vide paragraph 10 that he fell down in Kulhi. P.W. 10, the informant has supported his fardbeyan but admitted in cross-examination that the appellants have not cut this obstruction. He could not remember what he has stated before the police. He admitted that appellant Samsuddin Ansari was also assaulted. According to him, Islam Ansari was found fallen by him in the bari assaulted repeatedly with iron rod and lathi. He contradicts his own statement before the police. According to him vide paragraph-10, no injury was caused on Islam Ansari on his head with spade. These facts show that the informant and eyewitnesses of the occurrence contradicted themselves. 6. I have further gone through the impugned judgment vide paragraphs 8 and 9 holding the appellants guilty under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code separately. From close scrutiny of the materials on records, I find that the occurrence took place in which both sides exchanged blows with the arms in their hands. However, injured Islam Ansari and Suleman Ansari have received minor injures for which the appellants have already suffered trial for nearly fourteen years. The appellants, therefore, do not deserve sent to jail for serving the period of rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively. Accordingly, I find and hold that the sentences are not justified. The ends of justice may be served properly if they are directed to execute bonds under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act under provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain peace for a period of one year. 7. In the result, the judgment of conviction passed against the appellants is hereby affirmed but the sentence is modified and converted to execution of bond under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation 6f Offenders Act before the trial Court for a period of one year within two months from today. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.