Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1162 (JHR)

Ram Lakhan Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and learned Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2001 by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, whereby and where under, the Judgment of Conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.07.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in G.R. No. 1015 of 1997 (T.R. No. 191 of 2001), convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 341/323/325/34 has been upheld and the sentence has been reduced from 3 years R.I. to 2 years R.I. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had gone to the field for sowing paddy along with P.W. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner came and questioned her at which the informant replied that the land belonged to her. It is alleged that the petitioners had started to heckle her and when the mother of the informant tried to save her, she fell down on the ground and the petitioner No. 1 assaulted the mother of the informant with a spade which led to her leg getting fractured. Based on the aforesaid allegation Muffasil P.S. Case No. 206 of 1997 (G.R. No. 1015 of 1997) had been registered under Section 341, 323, 325, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C. Investigation resulted in the submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed against the petitioners and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. P.W. 1 Most. Jeevani Devi is the mother of the informant who had deposed that the petitioner had tried to heckle the informant and when her mother went to rescue her, she was assaulted by the petitioners with a spade which led to her leg getting fractured. P.W. 2 Shanti Devi is the informant, who has stated about the role of the petitioner in heckling her and thereafter assaulting with spade to her mother resulting in fracture injuries. P.W. 3 Chhunu Uraon had stated that while he was ploughing the filed of P.W. 2 he had seen both the accused assaulting on the leg of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 Khemlal Prasad did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Dr. P.W. 3 Chhunu Uraon had stated that while he was ploughing the filed of P.W. 2 he had seen both the accused assaulting on the leg of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 Khemlal Prasad did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Dr. Suresh Kumar had examined P.W. 1 and had found fracture on the left leg as well as on the left hand. P.W. 6 Budhwa Oraon has also not supported the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. P.W. 7 Bhuneshwar Gope and P.W. 8 Moti Ram are both formal witnesses. 5. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341,323 and 325 I.P.C. and were sentenced to a maximum period of 03 years R.I. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag on 09.05.2002 by reducing the maximum period from 3 years R.I. to 2 years R.I. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant and the petitioners are Gotias and on account of land dispute, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It has been stated that radiologist has not been examined and therefore non-examination of the radiologist regarding fracture injuries suffered by P.W. 1 has not been proved. It has also been stated that the land in question was transferred by the father of the petitioner to the petitioners and they have right, title and ownership over the said plot of land. It has also been submitted that no document pertaining to the place of occurrence has been produced by the prosecution to suggest that the land belonged to the informant party. Learned counsel further adds that non-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to the defence. 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 8. An argument has been sought to be projected on behalf of the petitioners regarding false implication of the petitioners on account of a land dispute. The enmity which has been subsisting cuts both ways and therefore it cannot mean that solely because of previous enmity, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. 8. An argument has been sought to be projected on behalf of the petitioners regarding false implication of the petitioners on account of a land dispute. The enmity which has been subsisting cuts both ways and therefore it cannot mean that solely because of previous enmity, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. The evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are categorical with respect to the assault upon the PW 1 with a spade leading to her suffering fracture injuries. The Doctor has been examined as PW 5 who has given his opinion based on radiological reports (Exts. 2 and 2/1) about the fracture injury and in such circumstances merely because the radiologist has not been examined, the prosecution case cannot get diluted. Non-examination of the I.O. has not proved fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of the consistent and corroborative evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 with respect to the place of occurrence, assault and the weapon used in the assault. 9. Since the circumstances enumerated above have been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offence under Section 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also on consideration of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is hereby sustained. However with respect to the sentence it appears that the petitioners are facing rigors of criminal case since 1997 and have also for sometime remained in custody. The petitioners and the informant both are Gotias. The petitioners are suffering mental harassment for more than two decades. In such circumstance therefore the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner.