Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 904 (JHR)

Haradhan Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-20

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court: Both the appeals arises out of common judgment dated 28.09.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 1998. Appellants – Dasu Rajwar and Chinvas Rajwar (in criminal appeal no. 693 of 2002) have been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years. They have also been convicted under Section148 of I.P.C. for which they have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year. Further they have been convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and senteced to undergo R. I. for one year. Sentences were to run concurrently. Appellants – Haradhan Rajwar, Tarapad Rajwar and Padlochan Rajwar (in criminal appeal no. 692 of 2002) have been convicted under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and they have been further convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The proseuction case in short is that on 19.10.1997 at about 5:30 in the morning all the accused persons assaulted the informant Tarapad Mahto (P.W. 4) by Lathi, Farsa and Tangi causing injury on his person about which he reported to the police on the same day. Appellant Dasu assaulted him on head by Tangi while appellant Chinivas assaulted him by Tangi on his back. Appellants Tarapad, Padam and Haradhan assaulted him by Lathi causing severe head injuries. Dasu snatched Rs. One thousand from his pocket. Chinivas picked the Chadar belonging to the informant. After hearing halla, the elder brother of the informant – Nishakar Mahatha (P. W. 2) came on the spot. He was also assauled by stone and Lathi and sustained injuries on his forehead. Villager Magan Tiwari (P.W. 1) and Akinder Atiwari brought him at house. Though the cause of incident has not been disclosed in the F.I.R., but P.W. 4 said that there is land dispute between the informant and his uncle who hired the appellants for assaulting the informant. 3. Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants assailted the impugned judgments on various grounds. Though the cause of incident has not been disclosed in the F.I.R., but P.W. 4 said that there is land dispute between the informant and his uncle who hired the appellants for assaulting the informant. 3. Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants assailted the impugned judgments on various grounds. She submitted that there was only one incised wound on the head of the informant and all other injuries were not on the vital parts of the body and were found simple in nature by the doctor including the injury sustained by Nishakar Mahatha (P.W. 2). She further submitted that prosecution has tried to improve its case in the evidence. She lastly submitted that the appellants have suffered this case from the year 1997 and no useful purpose will be served by sending them to jail for serving the balance sentence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and that the prosecution has proved its case fully against the appellants; and that the informant and his brother both sustained multiple injuries on their persons. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, in my opinion, the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. cannot be upheld. One incised injury on the head of the informant was found said to have been caused by the appellant Dasu by Tangi and rest of the injuries were found to be simple by the doctor and were on forearm and legs, though one diffused swelling and fracture on the posterior part of left leg was also found. On Nishakar (P.W. 2), lacerated wound on forehead and swelling of right shoulder, left thumb and left finger were found. The doctor opined these injuries to be simple in nature. It further appears that there is a case and counter case between the parties. 6. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. is set aside. But the conviction under other sections is upheld. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that Dasu has remained in jail for about 4 months and Chinivas has remained in jail for about 3 months. This case relates to the year 1997. No useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail for serving out the balance sentence. 7. However, I am inclined to impose fine of Rs. This case relates to the year 1997. No useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail for serving out the balance sentence. 7. However, I am inclined to impose fine of Rs. One thousand each on the appellants to be deposited in the trial court, and in default of payment thereof, they will undergo S. I. for one month. The trial court will inform the appellants about this order. From the date of communication, they will deposit the fine amount within six weeks. If the fine amount is deposited or the sentence in lieu thereof is suffered, the appellants will be discharged from their bail bonds. The trial court will inform the informant who will be at liberty to withdraw the fine amount, if deposited. With these alternation and modification in conviction and sentence, this appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.