Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 127 (JHR)

Dasrath Sahu @ Guddu Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-29

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Judgment The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The appellant was initially charged alongwith two other coaccused Santosh Sahu & Chamu Sahu for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Kedar Sahu the informant of this case with Tangi with common intention to cause death of Kedar Sahu but the trial court on consideration of materials and evidence on record convicted only the present appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but found the other two accused Santosh Sahu and Chamu Sahu not guilty for the charges levelled against them and acquitted them. 3. The prosecution case, which is based on fardbeyan of the informant Kedar Sahu P.W.7, is that on 10.01.2004 he along with his covillagers Tempu Sahu (P.W.3) and Ram Vilas Sahu (P.W.2) were coming back to their village at about 6 p.m. after seeing Jatra fair and when they reached near the house of Dr. Sahdeo, the appellant Dasrath Sahu alongwith two other miscreants whom he does not identify, assaulted him with Tangi resulting injuries on his face with broken teeth and when his companion tried to intervene, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, Ram Vilas Sahu (P.W.2) brought him to home. The motive for such occurrence was said to be the previous enmity and pendency of a case with Dasrath Sahu @ Guddu Sahu. 4. On the basis of the said farebeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation the police submitted the charge sheet. During investigation, police arrested the appellant and on his confessional statement (Ext.6), the Tangi used by him to assault the informant, was recovered and a seizure list was prepared which is Ext.7. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge. The charges against the three accused persons were framed under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to them to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge. The charges against the three accused persons were framed under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to them to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The defence, as it appears from the impugned judgment was complete denial of the accusation and that accused are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged rather they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. 5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses, out of whom P.W.7 Kedar Sahu is informant, P.W.8 is Savitri Devi the wife of informant, P.W.1 is Doctor who examined the informant, P.W.2 Ram Vilas Sahu and P.W.3 Tempo Sahu have been claimed to be the persons accompanying the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. P.W.5 Chhedu Sahu and P.W.6 Sukra Sahu are seizure list witnesses and from their evidences it appears that they had signed over a blank paper. P.W.9 is Investigating Officer. 6. The trial court, on the basis of 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 Tangi on his face but the court held that as there was no repetition of the blow and the back side of Tangi was used to assault the informant, there was no intention of the appellant to commit murder of the informant. Hence, the appellant has not committed the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code rather under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted as already noticed above. 7. Having heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. T.N. Verma, the learned A.P.P. for the State, I find from the impugned judgment that relying on the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.1 the court has come to the finding that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the prosecution version of the assault but I would like to examine their evidence before coming to the above conclusion. T.N. Verma, the learned A.P.P. for the State, I find from the impugned judgment that relying on the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.1 the court has come to the finding that the medical evidence has fully corroborated the prosecution version of the assault but I would like to examine their evidence before coming to the above conclusion. P.W.7 the informant while reiterating the story confirmed that the appellant and two other accused persons were hiding themselves near the place of occurrence while he was going on his bicycle to Tilaidih Mela, at about 5.30 p.m., Dasrath Sahu @ Guddu Sahu assaulted him on his face with Tangi whereafter he fell down from his bicycle and became unconscious. Thereafter, Tempo Sahu and Ram Vilas Sahu brought him to his home and next day in the morning police came to his house on the information given by Shiv Narayan Sahu his cousin. This witness was extensively cross examined but nothing was elicited from him except minor contradictions. The witnesses, during cross examination, has further stated that he and his other companion were driving their own bicycle and he was a little ahead from them and had no previous enmity with the appellant rather one case is pending against the uncle of the appellant. The minor contradiction relates to the time when the informant regained his consciousness which does not any way affect the prosecution case. It is true that the other two companions who were examined as P.W.2 & P.W.3 have not supported the prosecution version that they were accompanying the informant but those two have confirmed the fact to the extent that they were also coming back after seeing Mela to their village, they found Kedar Sahu lying on ground near Tilaidih. The two witnesses had denied that Kedar Sahu had given any information as to how he sustained the injuries but admits that they brought him to his home. 8. The Doctor (P.W.1) who had examined the informant on 11.01.2004 at 9 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Gumla, found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound red in colour on lower lip 1 c.m. depth in whole thickness of lip with blood clot. (ii) Lacerated wound red in colour on upper lip ½c.m. depth in whole thickness of lip with blood clot. (iii) Upper lateral inciser tooth uprooted with bleeding in socket. (ii) Lacerated wound red in colour on upper lip ½c.m. depth in whole thickness of lip with blood clot. (iii) Upper lateral inciser tooth uprooted with bleeding in socket. Injury nos.(i) & (ii) were simple while injury no.(iii) was grievous and all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substances and can be caused due to back of Tangi as opined by the doctor. The said injury report was marked as Ext.1. 9. The medical evidence has fully corroborated the prosecution version of the injuries found on the person of the informant (P.W.7). 10. After going through the entire material and evidence available on record and on their critical analysis, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.7. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, in my opinion, was proper and justified. 11. As regards the sentence, I have been told that this appellant had remained in jail for about more than four months. Moreover, the appellant has suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for a long period of more than 10 years. Taking into consideration the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, the injuries and the ordeal this appellant has suffered, I do not find it a fit case wherein the accused appellant should be asked to go back to the jail custody for serving the balance of the sentence. Hence in my opinion the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence of the period already undergone by him is awarded for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed.