Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1211 (JHR)

Rambilas Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioners. However, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned APP for the State is present. Since this case is pending since the year 2005, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-8, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19.11.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, in G.R. Case No. 1510 of 1995 (T.R. No. 460 of 2003), convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325, IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for various terms, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story, as would appear from the F.I.R., in brief, is that on the relevant date of occurrence, petitioner No. 1 was shouting for clearing the drain at which the informant replied that the rain water has collected and it would be cleared automatically. Hearing this, he started abusing the informant and thereafter he called other accused persons. It is thereafter alleged that the brother of the informant had come to save him at which the petitioner No.1 gave him a farsa blow, resulting injury on his palm. Another accused gave a farsa blow on the head of PW 1 causing bleeding injury. Other accused started assaulting the informant with lathi and rod and he sustained injuries on his nose, face and ear. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 237 of 1995 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 of the IPC. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of charges, trial proceeded. 4. PW 1 Krishna Singh is the brother of the informant, who had stated that on hearing the cry of alarm he had come to the place of occurrence and saw five persons were assaulting his brother, PW 2. This witness has further stated that when he tired to save him, petitioner No.1 had given him farsa blow on his left hand and another accused assaulted him on his head by farsa. This witness has further stated that all other accused persons had assaulted by means of lathi. He had admitted that the accused persons are his Gotias. This witness has further stated that when he tired to save him, petitioner No.1 had given him farsa blow on his left hand and another accused assaulted him on his head by farsa. This witness has further stated that all other accused persons had assaulted by means of lathi. He had admitted that the accused persons are his Gotias. He has further stated that his brother is an amputee of one hand. PW 2 Baleshwar Singh is the informant, who has stated that when he returned back from his night duty, accused persons started abusing on account of collection rain water. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was armed with farsa and the petitioner No.2 had assaulted him by means of a rod in his right palm and near the right ear and other accused persons had also assaulted him. This witness has further stated that on hearing the alarm, his brother PW 1 came to save him and he was also assaulted by accused persons. PW 3 Pradeep Kumar Sahay is the Doctor who had examined PW 1 and PW 2 and had found several injuries on their person. The injury No.3 found on the person of PW 1 and injury No.3 suffered by PW 2 were found to be grievous in nature. 5. The case of the defence is that although the incident had taken place in a locality, but no independent witness had deposed for the prosecution. It is further case of the defence that PW 1 and PW 2 are interested witnesses and therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. The injuries report contains some interpolation made by the Doctor which would be evident from the evidence of PW 3 himself. The further case of the defence was that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined. 6. The points which have been raised by the defence have been considered by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned appellate Court and both have interpreted such contention. 7. It appears that PW 1 and PW 2 are brothers but merely because they are siblings, their testimonies cannot be discarded in view of the consistent evidence with respect to the assault committed upon the PW 1 and PW 2. 7. It appears that PW 1 and PW 2 are brothers but merely because they are siblings, their testimonies cannot be discarded in view of the consistent evidence with respect to the assault committed upon the PW 1 and PW 2. PW 2 has stated that once accused person had started assaulting him, he had raised a cry which prompted PW 1 to come to the place of occurrence and also tried to save him and he was also brutally assaulted. PW 1 has also stated in similar terms. The place of occurrence is the courtyard and therefore in such circumstance, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Although some interpolation is found in the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 2 and Ext.2/1, but such interpolation cannot dilute the prosecution case in view of the fact that the evidence of doctor has clearly revealed that he had examined PW 1 and PW 2 and had found injuries on their person and the injury report was prepared by him. 8. Considering the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325, IPC. Learned appellate Court had also appreciated the materials available on record and affirmed the order of conviction. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed, it appears that the petitioners are the Gotias of the informant and they are facing rigours of the criminal case since 1995 and out of maximum sentence for 2 years S.I. under Section 325, IPC and under Section 324, IPC, the petitioners as it seems have remained for sometime in custody. The order of sentence passed against 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 petitioners. Application dismissed.