Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1083 (JHR)

Sona Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 06.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 5, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1996 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.08.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad in G. R. No. 1140 of 1990 corresponding to T. R. No. 180 of 1996 under Section 323 and 353 of I.P.C. has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified and reduced to 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 323 of I.P.C. as well as 3 months S.I. under Section 353 of I.P.C. while affirming the fine of Rs. 300/- as imposed by the learned trial court. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant and the other persons were working on railway track when the petitioner had come with two bucket of water and asked the informant and others to stop the work. On being protested, the informant and the other railway employees were assaulted leading to institution of G.R. No. 1140 of 1990. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken charges were framed for the offence under Section 323, 341 & 353 of I.P.C. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 09.08.1996 convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 & 353 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1996 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 5, Dhanbad on 06.11.2004 by modifying the sentence to the maximum period of 3 months under Section 323 & 353 of I.P.C. while maintaining the amount of fine of Rs. 300/- imposed by the learned trial court. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses are railway employees and therefore, they are interested witnesses and as such their evidences cannot be relied upon. He has also stated that the Investigating Officer of the case were never examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses are railway employees and therefore, they are interested witnesses and as such their evidences cannot be relied upon. He has also stated that the Investigating Officer of the case were never examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. In the alternative, an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be reduced substantially considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since 1990 and also for some time remained in custody. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer. 5. In course of trial, 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1-Hamid Mia is the informant who has stated that on 13.04.2009 while he was working on the railway line along with the others, the petitioner had asked them to stop the work and on refusal the informant and others were assaulted leading to suffering injury by them. P.W. 2-Wakil Mahto is the eye-witness as well as the injured witness who has supported the prosecution case. Similar is the statement of P.W. 3-Meghlal Mahto who is also an injured witness. P.Ws. 4, 5 & 6 as well as 11 are departmental witnesses. P.W. 7-Prafulla Mahto has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 8-Dr. Deo Kumar Chattopadhyay has examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and he had prepared the injury reports. P.W. 9-Alho has also supported the incident as stated by other witnesses. P.W. 10-Kisun is also an eyewitness. 6. The evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are consistent and corroborative to each other as all the witnesses in unison have stated about the attempt made by the petitioner to stop the informant and others from discharging their official duty and on protest, the petitioner had assaulted them which resulted in their suffering injuries. The injuries as alleged have been corroborated by the medical evidence as could be deciphered from the injury reports of P.W. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. Apart from 4 injured eye-witnesses, P.W. 10 is also an eye-witness and P.W. 9 has also supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has therefore been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 1, 2, 3 & 4. Apart from 4 injured eye-witnesses, P.W. 10 is also an eye-witness and P.W. 9 has also supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has therefore been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the consistent evidence of witnesses, non-examination of Investigating Officer pales into insignificance. So far as the fact that witnesses concerned are railway employees save and except P.W. 8, but that by itself would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence adduced by each of the witnesses. Such circumstances has rightly been considered by the learned trial court by convicting the petitioner under Sections 323 & 353 of I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly. The learned appellate court also based on the materials available on record dismissed the appeal. 7. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner and which has been affirmed in appeal is hereby sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it seems that the petitioner is suffering the rigors of prosecution case since 1990 and also for some time remained in custody. Such circumstance therefore, entitles the petitioner for reduction in sentence awarded to him. Accordingly, period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.