Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 265 (JHR)

Gopal Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-19

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER H.C. Mishra, J. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1994, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 7th June 1994 passed by Sri S.B. Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. No. 139 of 1988 / T.R. No. 421 of 1994, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with modification. It may be stated that the Trial Court below had found the petitioner guilty for the offence u/ss, 148, 323, 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for the same, whereas the other accused persons were also found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each for the offence u/ss, 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and these sentences were directed to run concurrently, whereas he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 427 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/s 435 of the Indian Penal Code and both these sentences were directed to run consecutively. 3. It appears from the Appellate Court Judgement that the said appeal was filed by the petitioner only, in which the Court below has set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/s 427 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that there was no occasion for convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 427 of the Indian Penal Code, as he had already been convicted u/s 435 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/ss. 148, 323 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld by the Appellate Court below. 4. The Judgment passed by the Trial Court shows that Patamda P.S. Case No. 9 of 1988 was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the informant Mathura Singh, informing that his truck bearing registration No. BRX-9475 was taken by one Bijay Singh for transportation of fire wood on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter. 4. The Judgment passed by the Trial Court shows that Patamda P.S. Case No. 9 of 1988 was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the informant Mathura Singh, informing that his truck bearing registration No. BRX-9475 was taken by one Bijay Singh for transportation of fire wood on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter. Subsequently, the driver came and informed him that the accused persons named in the F.I.R., had assaulted the driver and khalasi and it was alleged that this petitioner put the truck to fire due to which the truck was burnt. The informant upon getting the information went and saw his truck completely burnt. On the basis of the information given by the informant, the police case was instituted for the offence u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 436, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons and ultimately they were put to trial. 5. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-7, is Abdul Gaffar, who is the driver of the truck, who was also assaulted in the occurrence and sustained injuries. This witness has fully supported the case stating that the truck of the informant Mathura Singh was hired by Bijay Singh and he was called by the owner of the truck to transport the fire wood on the truck. When the fire wood was being loaded on the truck the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, in all 14 to 15 persons, came and they started assaulting them. It is alleged that petitioner Gopal Manjhi assaulted him by tangi causing injuries on his head and thereafter, this petitioner broke the diesel tank of the truck and put the truck to fire, due to which the entire truck was burnt. This witness has identified the petitioner in the Court. P.W.-6 is Mathura Singh, who is the informant in the case and he has also supported the prosecution case, but he is not the eye witness to the occurrence and he was informed about the occurrence by P.W.-7, Abdul Gaffar. He has proved the written information given before the police which was marked Exbit-2. P.W.-8 is Dr. Sant Prasad Verma, who examined the injuries of the injured Abdul Gaffar. He has proved the written information given before the police which was marked Exbit-2. P.W.-8 is Dr. Sant Prasad Verma, who examined the injuries of the injured Abdul Gaffar. He has stated that he had found the lacerated wound measuring 2”x1/2”x1/4” on the back of the scalp of Abdul Gaffar which was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He has also proved the injury report which was marked as Exhibit-3. P.W.-5 is Gagan Rai, who is the retired M.V.I., who had inspected the burnt truck and had submitted his report. This witness has also proved his report and the same was market as Exhibit-1. P.W.-2 is Shivcharan Singh who is a labour, who was loading the wood on the truck and this witness is also the eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated that it was the petitioner who had assaulted the driver Abudl Gaffar causing injuries on him and he had put the truck to fire burning the truck completely. He has also stated that in all 14 persons had committed the occurrence. P.W.-1 is Bijay Singh, who has also supported the prosecution case stating that in all 15 persons came and they assaulted the driver and khalasi, the driver sustained bleeding injuries and the accused persons put the truck to fire. He has also identified the accused in the Court. P.W.-3, Ranga Singh and P.W.-4, Sadhu Mani Singh are the father and mother of P.W.-1, Bijay Singh, and they have also supported the prosecution case. Though they are not the eye witness to the assault, but they had seen the injury on the driver and they had also seen the burnt truck. On the basis of these evidences on record the Trial Court below convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned and the appeal filed against the said judgement was also dismissed with modification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgements passed by both the Courts below are absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, in as much as, the witnesses have stated that the fire wood was being collected for the marriage of the daughter. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, in as much as, the witnesses have stated that the fire wood was being collected for the marriage of the daughter. Though some of the witnesses have stated that the marriage was to take place on the next day of the occurrence, but P.W.-4, Sadhu Mani Singh has stated in her cross-examination that the marriage had taken place after two months. It is also submitted that the Khalasi of the truck and the I.O. have not been examined in this case which has caused prejudice to the defence. Submitting that the prosecution has not produced the best evidence in the case, and placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 91 , wherein it has been held that placing the best possible evidence, in the given circumstances, before the Court for consideration, is one of the cardinal principles of the Indian Evidence Act, it is submitted that important witnesses were held back by the prosecution and accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has submitted that the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case. The injured witness, P.W.-7 Abdul Gaffar has clearly stated that he was assaulted by this petitioner causing bleeding injuries on him and it was this petitioner who had put the truck to fire. The injuries of P.W.-7 Abdul Gaffar have been proved by P.W.-8 Dr. Sant Prasad Verma, who has also proved the injury report issued by him. The report about the burnt truck has been proved by the M.V.I., P.W.-5 Gagan Rai. P.W.-2 Shivcharan Singh is a labour and the eye witness to the occurrence, who has also fully supported the prosecution case, that it was the petitioner who had assaulted the driver and put the truck to fire. The report about the burnt truck has been proved by the M.V.I., P.W.-5 Gagan Rai. P.W.-2 Shivcharan Singh is a labour and the eye witness to the occurrence, who has also fully supported the prosecution case, that it was the petitioner who had assaulted the driver and put the truck to fire. P.W.-1 Bijay Singh, P.W.3 Ranga Singh and P.W.-4 Sadhu Mani Singh have also fully supported the prosecution case and they had seen the driver of the truck injured and had also seen the truck burnt. P.W.-6 is Mathura Singh, who is the owner of the truck who was informed about the occurrence by the driver and he had seen the injury on the driver and he had also seen his truck burnt. Thus the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case and there is cogent evidence on record to show that the petitioner along with about 14 to 15 persons, forming an unlawful assembly, had come to the place of occurrence and had assaulted the driver and khalasi of the truck and had burnt the truck. There is direct allegation of assaulting and burning the truck against this petitioner. The other accused persons have also been convicted for the offence u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Though there may be some discrepancies here and there, in the evidence on record, but they are only natural and they are not such so as to discredit the evidence on record. 9. Upon going through the record, I find that the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgements passed by both the Courts below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Courts concerned.