Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 882 (JHR)

Baijnath Sonar v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-09-15

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Garhwa in Sessions Case No. 335 of 1988 convicting the appellants-Baijnath Sonar, Sarju Sonar and Rajendra Sonar under section 326 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, whereas appellant-Surendra Sonar was convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a fardbeyan was lodged by the informant-Baikunt Choubey on 29.07.1987 at about 10.45 AM that when he went on his land, he found the appellants ploughing it. There was litigation with regard to the land in question and the prosecution party had a decree from the Court of Commissioner at Ranchi in their favour and a demand was also settled. The informant along with his brother Hirachand Choubey went to the land and asked the accused persons not to plough it. All of a sudden, appellants-Baijnath Sonar and Sarju Sonar and one accused Ramsurat Sonar (now deceased) hit him by 'garasha', placed nearby, on his head causing bleeding injury. Appellants-Rajendra Sonar and Surendra Sonar armed with lathi arrived there and assaulted on his left hand. When Hirachand Choubey tried to protect him, the appellant-Sarju Sonar hit him on the right side of his head by 'garasha'. Surendra Sonar hit Hirachand by lathi on his left hand. Upon alarm raised by the informant party, co-villager Dhirendra Choubey arrived there who had seen the occurrence. 3. Mr. J.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and there was case and counter case; and that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, it appears that the prosecution tried to prove that the accused persons were the aggressor. The learned trial court inter-alia held that it was not possible to declare as to which party was in actual possession of the land in dispute; and that there was protracted litigation between them since 1980; and that the civil dispute cannot be decided in the criminal jurisdiction. The learned trial court inter-alia held that it was not possible to declare as to which party was in actual possession of the land in dispute; and that there was protracted litigation between them since 1980; and that the civil dispute cannot be decided in the criminal jurisdiction. It has been rightly held that the appellant-Baijnath Sonar and accused Ramsurat Sonar (since deceased) assaulted the informant Baikunt Choubey by garasha on his head. Appellant-Sarju Sonar assaulted Hirachand Choubey with garasha on his head. Appellants-Rajendra Sonar and Surendra Sonar assaulted Manoj Kumar Choubey (PW-3) and Anuj Kumar Choubey (PW-4), both sons of the informant, by lathi. The doctor found grievous injury on the head of informant-Baikunt Choubey apart from other injuries. He also found fracture injury on the right ulna of Hirachand Choubey and a lacerated wound on the scalp apart from other injuries. Injury no. 1 found at the informant-Baikunt Choubey and Hirachand Choubey were grievous while others were simple in nature. Injuries on Manoj Kumar Choubey (PW-3) and Anuj Kumar Choubey (PW-4) were found simple in nature. After considering the respective cases of the parties and materials brought on record, the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellants under sections 326 and 323 IPC. 6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 7. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that this case is of the year 1987 and the appellant no. 1-Baijnath Sonar would be about 84 years of age by now, appellant no. 2-Sarju Sonar would be about 79 years of age by now, appellant no. 3-Rajendra Sonar would be about 61 years of age by now and appellant no. 4-Surendra Sonar, who was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, would be about 49 years of age by now. There was land dispute between the parties. It appears that the appellants have remained in jail for a short period of about a fortnight, but no useful purpose will be served by sending them to jail in this case. In my opinion, imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the sentence is converted into the sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-each. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of fine within six weeks from today in the trial court. In my opinion, imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the sentence is converted into the sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-each. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of fine within six weeks from today in the trial court. If one or other appellants fails to deposit the amount of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If the amount of fine is deposited, the trial court will discharge the appellant (s) from the bail bonds and will issue notice to the informant / his family members who will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of fine. 9. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.