Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 519 (JHR)

Dhobla Sardar v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-21

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. (1) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant from the jail against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th day of March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 186 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for committing offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. (2) THE appellant was initially charged for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for giving a knife blow on the belly of the informant with intention to cause the death of Gurucharan Gope, but the trial Court on the facts and on consideration of the materials and evidence on record convicted the appellant for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, is that on on 6.5.2002 at night, the informant with his family members slept in the Veranda of his house in the early morning on 7.5.2002 someone had knocked the door of his house and told that "MUJHE BACHAO BACHAO NAHIN TO WAY LOG MAR DEGA". Hearing this, informant opened the door and saw that the appellant was standing just in front of him. Seeing the informant the appellant repeated "MUJHE BACHAO BACHAO NAHIN TO WAY LOG MAR LEGA". At this the informant took the appellant inside his house and told him to stay and sleep inside the room. The informant along with his family members also went to sleep in the Veranda. According to the informant the door of the room in which the appellant was sleeping was bolted from outside. After about half an hours the appellant wanted to urinate and at this the informant opened the door of the room. As soon as he opened the door the appellant said to have assaulted the informant on his belly by means of a knife, due to which he received bleeding injuries. The informant caught his hand and called Jogna Gope i.e. his wife (P.W.6). She came and pushed the appellant inside the room and bolted the door from outside and the informant along with his family went to the house of his sister Mecho Sardar (P.W.4) and then narrated the occurrence to her as well as to the villagers. Thereafter he became unconscious. She came and pushed the appellant inside the room and bolted the door from outside and the informant along with his family went to the house of his sister Mecho Sardar (P.W.4) and then narrated the occurrence to her as well as to the villagers. Thereafter he became unconscious. He was removed to Sadar Hospital for treatment and in the morning he came to know that the appellant had fled away from his house after breaking open the doors. Informant specifically stated that he had no enmity of any kind with the appellant. (3) THE police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet and thereafter the appellant was put on trial. (4) IN order to establish the charges altogether 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom P.W.5 is the informant and P.W.6 is his wife, whereas P.W. 2 is the Doctor, who has medically examined the injured (P.W.5) and he found the following injuries on his person; 2" above and left to the amblicus size 1x1/2" long, P.W.1 Ram Lal Sardar, has stated that on hearing hulla he went at the house of P.W.4, then he saw the injury on the belly of the P.W.5. P.W.3 Roop Lal Sardar @ Bahadur and P.W.4 Mecho Sardarin are brother in law and sister respectively of the informant and they have stated that at about 4.00/4.30 a.m. when they were inside their house the informant and his wife came to their house and narrated the story and they also saw the injuries on the belly of the informant from which blood was oozing out. The informant told them that it was the appellant who assaulted him with knife due to which he sustained injury. P.W.6 Jogna Gope, wife of the informant, has stated that the appellant assaulted her husband by means of knife on his abdomen due to which he received bleeding injury. She has fully corroborated the statement made by the informant. P.W.7 is Krishna Kumar Tiwari, he is the INvestigating Officer of the case. P.W. 8 is Bitu Sardar, who is the village Munda and he stated that the informant had told him about the occurrence and the assault made on him by the appellant. P.W.9 is the A.S.I., who has conducted part of the investigation and had submitted charge sheet. P.W.7 is Krishna Kumar Tiwari, he is the INvestigating Officer of the case. P.W. 8 is Bitu Sardar, who is the village Munda and he stated that the informant had told him about the occurrence and the assault made on him by the appellant. P.W.9 is the A.S.I., who has conducted part of the investigation and had submitted charge sheet. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the fact that the appellant assaulted the informant by means of knife on his abdomen, but he held that by voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to the person of the informant an offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the appellant and not an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he convicted the appellant for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years as already noticed above. (5) HAVING heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, A.C. as well as the learned A.P.P. for the state and after going through the facts and evidence on record, I find from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 as well as from the evidence of Doctor (P.W.2) that the prosecution has been able to establish the fact that it was the appellant who on the date and time of occurrence assaulted the informant by means of knife on his abdomen causing injuries. The statement of the informant has fully been corroborated by his wife P.W.6 as well as from the medical evidence (P.W.2). Corresponding injuries were found on the person of the injured (P.W.5). (6) AFTER going through the entire material on record I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, since the evidence on record did not disclose that the appellant had the intention to cause death of the informant by assaulting him. From the records it appears that the appellant was in custody during the trial and even from the date of judgment i.e. 12.3.2003, he was in custody. From the records it appears that the appellant was in custody during the trial and even from the date of judgment i.e. 12.3.2003, he was in custody. Therefore, the appellant by now has served out the sentence awarded to him and, therefore, he must have been released by now. However, if he is still in custody then he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. (7) ACCORDINGLY, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, this appeal is dismissed.