Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 661 (JHR)

Dhananjay Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.2002 passed by Shri B.K. Goswami, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 381 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment of one and half years and penalty of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of penalty, they were further directed to suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment each. 3. The prosecution story as would arise from the Fardbeyan instituted by the informant is that one Kamdeo and Dhananjay Gope (Appellant No. 1) were quarreling whereupon P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 (Informant) tried to restrain them and in the meantime the other appellants appeared and appellant No. 1 was armed with a Farsa by which he assaulted P.W. 5 causing injury on his back and left arm as a result of which the informant (P.W. 5) had fallen on the ground. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Adityapur P.S. Case No. 35 of 1990 was instituted. Investigation was conducted which culminated in submission of charge-sheet on 31.03.1990 and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions wherein charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 324 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1, Nagendra Karmkar, is the witness of seizure who has proved his signature Ext. 1 which is the seizure memo of alleged Farsa. P.W. 2, Anil Kumar was tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 3, Nath Niyal Soy, is the father of the informant and he has stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence the incident had already taken place and his son was lying injured on the ground. This witness has stated that his son (P.W. 5) was taken to TMC. This witness has not stated about the manner of occurrence as admittedly he was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. This witness has stated that his son (P.W. 5) was taken to TMC. This witness has not stated about the manner of occurrence as admittedly he was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 4, Subhas Gorai, has stated that when Kamdeo, Pradeep and Dhananjay were quarreling with each other this witness and P.W. 5 had gone to pacify them at which the appellant no. 2 assaulted P.W. 5 on his back. He has further stated that at the time of the assault the appellant no. 1 was armed with Farsa whereas the appellant no. 2 was armed with Gupti. This witness has stated that appellant no. 2 had assaulted the informant on his left arm and appellant no. 1 had assaulted the informant by Farsa on his back. P.W. 5, William Soren, is the informant and this witness has stated that the appellant no. 1 and Kamdeo were quarreling and when he tried to restrain them the appellant no. 1 attacked him by Farsa and appellant no. 2 assaulted him on his left arm by a Gupti. This witness has stated that he was taken to TMH for his treatment. P.W. 6, Dr. M.C. Majhi, had examined P.W. 5, the injured, and he found the following injuries:- (a) Incised wound over right scapular region size 3”x 1”. (b) Incised wound over left arm 4” above elbow size 1”x1/2”x1/2”. The doctor had opined that the weapon used in the assault was sharp cutting weapon like Farsa and the injuries sustained by P.W. 5 were simple in nature. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are several discrepancies in the statement of P.Ws. 4 and 5 with respect to the manner of assault. It has also been submitted that the injuries found on the person of P.W. 5 were opined by the Doctor P.W. 6 to be simple in nature. It has also been submitted that the intention to commit assault upon the P.W. 5 was absent inasmuch as if there was any ill intention P.W. 5 would have suffered multiple injuries. 8. It has also been submitted that the injuries found on the person of P.W. 5 were opined by the Doctor P.W. 6 to be simple in nature. It has also been submitted that the intention to commit assault upon the P.W. 5 was absent inasmuch as if there was any ill intention P.W. 5 would have suffered multiple injuries. 8. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the assault which has been made upon the P.W. -5 by the appellants have been corroborated by the medical evidence and has also been supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 and, therefore, the prosecution having established its case the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced. 9. The prosecution evidence suggests that apart from the informant P.W. 4 Subhas Gorai was also present and infact P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had tried to pacify the appellants when they were quarreling at which the appellants had assaulted P.W. 5 which led to injuries on his head as well as left arm. The evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are corroborative to each other and there is no inconsistency so as to disbelieve their statements. Both these witnesses had stated about how appellant no. 1 had inflicted blow with a Farsa and the appellant no. 2 had assaulted P.W. 5 with a Gupti. The injuries found by P.W. 6 on the person of P.W. 5 matches the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and in such circumstances there being no error or infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court is affirmed. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and the sentence which has been imposed upon the appellants is simple imprisonment of one and half years and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- it would not be proper or justifiable to take back the appellants into custody for serving the rest of their sentences and, accordingly, while sustaining the conviction of the appellants their sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them. 10. This appeal stands dismissed with the modification in sentence as noted above. Appeal dismissed.