Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1337 (JHR)

Ram Chandra Kewat v. State of Jharkhand

2009-10-27

JAYA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. The appellants (three appellants) have preferred this appeal before this Court for setting aside the judgment dated 31. 07.2000 passed by Dr. S. P. Thakur Additional Sessions Judge – II Court, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 287 of 1996 convicting the appellants No. 1, namely, Arjun Kewat under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting the other two appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Kewat and Ramesh Kewat under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and also for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2009 whereby the appellant No. 1 namely, Arjun Kewat had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and other two appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Kewat and Ramesh kewat had been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in both the aforesaid offences. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.10.1995 at about 9 P.M. the aforesaid appellants tress passed into the house of the informant in Godhar Basti, near Balu Banker, P. S. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad with a criminal intension and they assaulted the informant Ram Kelhawan Pandit with fists and slaps and also with a sharp cutting weapon with intend to kill him. They also abused him and wrongfully restrained him in his room. The informant lodged the FIR in support of the aforesaid occurrence and after investigation I. O. has submitted the charge-sheet against all the three appellants under Sections 323, 341, 506, 452, 504 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution to prove its case, examined six witnesses amongst them P. W. 4 is the informant, P. W. – 3 is the wife of the informant, P. W. – 1 Yadu Pandit, P. W. – 2 Raghu Pandit, P. W. – 5 is Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu and P. W. – 6 Nisar Ahmad is the I. O. of the case. Defence is the totally denial of the offences. The aforesaid appellants have also denied their guilt in their statement given under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits, the trial court convicted the aforesaid three appellants as stated above by the impugned judgment. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants Dr. M. K. Laik has submitted that the prosecution has not come before the trial court with a clear hand. P. C. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits, the trial court convicted the aforesaid three appellants as stated above by the impugned judgment. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants Dr. M. K. Laik has submitted that the prosecution has not come before the trial court with a clear hand. The case of the appellants is that they have also lodged the FIR in support of the occurrence which was taken place on the same day i.e. on 16.10.1995 at about 9.30 P. M. against the informant of the present case namely, Ram Khelawan Pandit and Raghu Pandit (P.W. 2). After investigation, the Police have submitted charge-sheet against the informant of the present case namely, Ram Khelawan Pandit and Raghu Pandit under Sections 341,448, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid FIR (lodged by the Arjun Kewat) and the charge-sheet submitted in the said case are marked as Exhibits – A and B in the present case. 4. Dr. Laik has further submitted that even under Section 315 of the Cr. P. C. the appellants Namely, Arjun Kewat has very specifically stated that on 16.10.1995 at about 9.30 P. M. the informant, Ram Khelawan pandit of the present case and Raghu Pandit alongwith few other persons came to his shop and assaulted him on his head by Lathi on which he had received serious injury on his head. Furthermore, all those persons assaulted him on his chest and face also. But the trial court has neither discussed nor considered all these aspects in the judgment. Thus, it is very clear that the prosecution has not described the actual manner of the occurrence. 5. It is further submitted that though the place of occurrence is only about 2 kilometers from the Police Station but the informant lodged the FIR on 18.10.1995 at about 10 A.M., and he has not given any explanation regarding the delay in lodging the aforesaid FIR. 6. Thus, the delay of thirty six hours when the place of occurrence is only at a distance of 2 kilometers from the Police Station there is every chance that the informant has twisted the acual fact in the said FIR to his own advantage. Therefore, this is another suspicious feature of the case which can not he over looked. 7. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Therefore, this is another suspicious feature of the case which can not he over looked. 7. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Shekhar Sinha has not disputed these factual contentions of the appellants. 8. Further more, from the records, I find that it was submitted before the trial court that the informant of the instant case Ram Khelawan Pandit lodged this case only because the brother of the informant has assaulted one of the appellants for which appellant Arjun Kewat had already lodged the case against the informant Ram Khalawan Pandit and practically in order to save himself, Ramkhelawan Pandit has lodged this counter case against the appellants including Arjun Kewat. 9. Considering all these circumstances in my opinion, prosecution has not come with the actual picture of the alleged occurrence before the trial court. In this situation and in my opinion the accused appellants should be given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I acquit all the three appellants giving them benefits of doubt from all the charges and set aside the convictions and sentences imposed upon them by the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed as the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.