Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 288 (JHR)

Manik Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2007-04-10

D.P.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2002 and 27.8.2002 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 1993 whereby and whereunder appellant no. 1 Manik Paswan stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively whereas appellant nos. 2 to 6 stand convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonments for five years and one year respectively. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 13.5.1988, all the appellants alongwith ten-fifteen unknown persons arrived at the place of occurrence, homestead land of the informant Bhisam Paswan and started putting balla and khutta to erect a hut on his land. The informant further asserted that the land in question belonged jointly to him and two his uncles. However, appellant Manik Paswan claiming to have purchased the land from his cousin sister Bhulia Devi, daughter of late Banbari Paswan was trying to grab the land. The informant further stated that he asked them to wait till the villagers decide the issue, on which he was assaulted variously by the appellants. He further asserted that appellant Manik Paswan gave a Farsa blow on his head while others assaulted him with lathi. He raised alarms on which villagers arrived, saw the occurrence and rescued him. The informant was thereafter brought to hospital for treatment where police arrived and recorded his fardbeyan. 3. On the basis of which, Taljhan Police Station Case No. 26 of 1988 under various sections of Indian Penal Code was registered against named accused persons. The police investigated the case, submitted charge-sheet under various sections including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed on 7.12.1992. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution due to land dispute. They further asserted that for same occurrence Taljhari Police Station Case No. 27 of 1988 has been lodged and the informant side was aggressor. However, the learned trial court after considering the evidence on record found and held all of them guilty and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonments as stated above. 4. They further asserted that for same occurrence Taljhari Police Station Case No. 27 of 1988 has been lodged and the informant side was aggressor. However, the learned trial court after considering the evidence on record found and held all of them guilty and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonments as stated above. 4. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court has not considered the defence properly. It is also asserted that the genesis of the occurrence, the manner in which occurrence took place has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It was also pointed out that the informant himself has contradicted his earlier versions by saying during evidence in trial court that he could not identify anyone else except appellant Ramswaroop Paswan. According to this memo of appeal, in absence of the investigating officer and the doctor, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. 5. I have gone through the materials on records minutely to assess the submissions made above. The admitted case on the record is that the appellants are claiming some portion of the homestead land on the basis of stamped deed (Ext.1 and B) brought on record by the defence by which said Bhulia Devi has admitted that she has given her share of the land from joint Jamabandi No. 7 to appellant Manik Paswan. The counter case, Taljhari Police Station Case No. 27 of 1988 vide Ext. C shows that at 4.00 P.M. on 13.5.1988, the informant side has objected the efforts of appellant Manik Paswan in erecting hut on the land and the informant has given a sharp cut injury on his head with II Garasa". His statement was recorded by police in Sahibganj hospital on 14.5.1988. Therefore, the occurrence taking place in the evening of 13.5.1988 is not disputed. 6. However, it has come on record that witnesses on behalf of the prosecution have given different versions. PW.1 Bhisham Paswan• has admitted during cross-examination that though he has lodged a case against six persons only two persons were known to him. He has named all the six persons in the examination-in-chief. He admitted in paragraph-3 that there stood a hut belonging to accused persons vide paragraph-3. PW.1 Bhisham Paswan• has admitted during cross-examination that though he has lodged a case against six persons only two persons were known to him. He has named all the six persons in the examination-in-chief. He admitted in paragraph-3 that there stood a hut belonging to accused persons vide paragraph-3. He further admitted vide paragraph-4 that he has been acquitted in the case filed by appellant Manik Paswan. Therefore, the fact remains that there was dispute regarding possession of land. According to him, appellant Manik Paswan assaulted him with Farsa only once but appellant Ramswaroop Paswan with Khanti twice. The injury report has not been brought on record and in absence of the doctor it cannot be said what type of injury was caused with these assaults. P.W. 2 admitted in paragraph-2 that he was not examined by police. P.W.3 is hearsay witness, who arrives at the place of occurrence on hulla to find that the informant was lying injured. According to this witness, appellant Manik Paswan was not fleeing from that place. P.W. 4 is a lady, who was preparing food in her house when alarms was raised and she reaches at the place of occurrence to be witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 5 has admitted in cross-examination that he was brother-in-law of the informant. P.W. 6 is hearsay witness of the occurrence. PW.7 and P.W. 8 have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 9 also admitted that during examination before the police he has named only one appellant, namely, Manik Paswan. P.W. 10 is a formal witness. 7. I have further gone through the impugned judgment. The learned trial' court has believed on oral evidence of the occurrence and held appellants guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code to have caused grievous injuries on the head of informant with Farsa. However, this fact has not been supported by any medical evidence. Marpit took place on the question of putting hut on the land for which two different versions were brought before the trial court. The learned trial court having believed on the oral evidence has convicted these appellants. The fact . that the informant was being examined by police same evening at 8.30 P.M. in Sadar hospital but no injury report was prepared by the police or doctor nor brought on record in this case. The learned trial court having believed on the oral evidence has convicted these appellants. The fact . that the informant was being examined by police same evening at 8.30 P.M. in Sadar hospital but no injury report was prepared by the police or doctor nor brought on record in this case. The same police registered Taljhari Police Station Case No. 27 of 1988 on the statement of appellant Manik Paswan. The non-examination of investigating officer in this case creates a reasonable doubt on the prosecution version. Furthermore, I find that the trial has remained pending for nearly fourteen years and if any minor scuffle has taken place, conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contradictory statements of witnesses regarding the genesis of the occurrence, manner of assault make the whole prosecution story doubtful. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that the conviction of the appellants cannot be maintainable. 8. In the result, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and further discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.