Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1090 (JHR)

Md. Julani Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-11

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J. I.A. No. 3827 of 2015. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of seven days in filing this appeal. In view of the statements made in the Interlocutory Application, the delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. The I.A. No. 3827 of 2015 Is hereby, allowed. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 463 of 2015 With I.A. No. 2494 of 2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgement dated 02.05.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 650 of 2009, whereby the accused-respondents who were facing trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 504/149 of the Indian Penal Code, have been convicted only for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been acquitted of the other charges. Upon hearing on the point of sentence the accused-respondents have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is allegation against the accused-respondents to have assaulted the injured persons with the intention to cause their death, which fact is supported in the evidence, and accordingly, the impugned Judgment acquitting the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. 5. The impugned Judgment shows that the occurrence had taken place on the dispute for harvesting the paddy crop, from the land in dispute between the parties. the injuries on the injured have been proved by P.W.-1, i.e., the Doctor, who found only simple injuries on the person of the injured persons and has also proved the injury report. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the accused-respondents have been rightly convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been given the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement dated 02.05.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 650 of 2009. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 8. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement dated 02.05.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 650 of 2009. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 8. The Interlocutory Application No. 2494 of 2017, seeking leave for filing the appeal against the Judgement of acquittal, also stands dismissed.