Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 173 (JHR)

Began Rana v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-01

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 6th January 2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Appeal No.99 of 2001 / 50 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17.8.2001 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar, in G.R. No.408 of 1996 / T.R. 236 of 2001, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 and 325 of the IPC and sentencing him for the same, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below with the modification in sentence that the petitioner was given the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing him to enter into the probation bond of Rs.5,000/-with two sureties of like amount each for maintaining peace and keeping good behaviour for one year. 3. It appears from the impugned Judgments that a Sanha dated 6.7.1996 was lodged by one Sudhir Rana alleging that while he was in his house, the accused persons including this petitioner asked him for partition of land, which was refused by the informant, whereupon, he was assaulted by the accused persons. There is allegation of assault against this petitioner causing injuries on the informant. 4. It, however, appears from the impugned Judgments that the original Sanha could not be produced in the Court below and the same was not proved, rather the true copy of the same was proved. The formal FIR was proved as exhibit 4, which showed that the occurrence took place on 6.7.1986 but the FIR was lodged on 2.10.1996, but no explanation was given for delay in lodging the FIR. Learned Courts below have relied upon the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the informant, the I.O. and the doctor, who had examined the informant and the doctor also proved the injury report issued by him, which showed one grievous injury on the informant in form of fracture on his right shoulder. 5. Learned Courts below have relied upon the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the informant, the I.O. and the doctor, who had examined the informant and the doctor also proved the injury report issued by him, which showed one grievous injury on the informant in form of fracture on his right shoulder. 5. The impugned Judgments further show that the Courts below, though noted the fact that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and there was no explanation by the prosecution explaining the delay, but in view of the fact that the witnesses supported the prosecution case, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced for the same. 6. I find from the Impugned Judgments passed by the learned Courts below that there is inordinate delay of about three months in lodging the FIR, coupled with the fact that the original Sanha was not proved, only true copy of Sanha was proved, and there is no explanation also for not proving the original Sanha. Taking into consideration these facts, I am of the considered view that even though the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution had supported the prosecution case, but due to non explanation of inordinate delay, as also for not proving the original Sanha, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the facts and circumstances of the this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners were entitled at least to the benefit of doubt on these grounds. 7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.2001 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Madhupur at Deoghar, in G.R. Case No.408 of 1996 / T.R. No.236 of 2002, as also the Judgment dated 6.1.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Appeal No.99 of 2001 / 50 of 2002, are hereby, set-aside. The petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. This application is allowed.