Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1213 (JHR)

Narayan Kumhar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. As the matter is pending since 2005, the same is being disposed of on the basis of the materials available on the record. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1997 by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.03.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma, in G.R. Case No. 503/1993 (T.R. No. 201 of 1997), convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for six months, has been affirmed. 3. It appears that the first information report was instituted in which it was alleged that when the informant was going to answer the call of nature and when he reached near the house of Jagdish Kumhar, some of the accused persons had restrained the informant and started assaulting by means of lathi. It is alleged that other accused also came variously armed with bhala and were instigating that the informant should not be let off today. The informant raised hulla upon which parents and brother had rushed to save the informant but they all were also assaulted by the accused persons. After seeing several persons coming to the place of occurrence, the accused persons managed to fled away. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No. 503 of 1993 (T.R. No. 201 of 1997) was instituted. Investigation culminated in submission of the chargesheet and after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1-Dr. Bhagwan Sudhansu was the Medical Officer, posted at Jainagar, who treated and examined injuries upon PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5. This witness has stated that the injuries suffered by PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 were opined to be simple in nature. PW 2 Banshi Kumhar is the father of the informant, who has stated that on the date of occurrence when his son was going to answer the call of nature, he was accosted by the petitioner and was beaten by lathi. PW 2 Banshi Kumhar is the father of the informant, who has stated that on the date of occurrence when his son was going to answer the call of nature, he was accosted by the petitioner and was beaten by lathi. This witness has stated that subsequently he was caught by 10-12 people who had assaulted him by means of bhala. This witness during cross-examination has admitted to the pendency of the civil suit between the petitioners and the informant. PW 3-Rewati Devi is the mother of the informant, who has given same and similar statement, which has been given by PW 2. PW 4-Laxman Kumhar is the informant of the case, who has stated that when he was going along with another person to answer nature's call, he was assaulted by the petitioners and when he raised alarm, parents and brother came there to save him and they were also assaulted. PW 5-Ramdeo Pandit is the younger brother of the informant, who had also reached the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 Ramchandra Singh is the co-villager of the informant, who had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing' alarm. PW 7-Munshi Singh is also co-villager of the informant, who in his cross-examination, has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found a crowd of 60-70 people there but no person interfered and on his interference, the petitioner left informant (PW 4). PW 8-Deonath Choubey is the Investigating Officer of the case, who had visited the place of occurrence and had recorded the statement of the informant, thereafter on finding the allegation to be true, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners. 6. It is the case of the defence that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account of a long pending dispute between the petitioners and the informants. It is further case of the defence that civil suit is pending before the parties. The defence has further argued that all the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution, all are interested witness and several vital contradictions could be detected in their evidence. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. It is further case of the defence that civil suit is pending before the parties. The defence has further argued that all the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution, all are interested witness and several vital contradictions could be detected in their evidence. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. It appears from the evidence of PW 4 (the informant) and the allegation made in the FIR that when the informant was going to answer the call of nature, he reached near the house of Jagdish Kumhar, where some of the accused persons had restrained the informant and started assaulting by means of lathi. It is alleged that other accused also came variously armed with bhala and were invoking that the informant should not be let off today. The informant raised alarm upon which parents and brother had rushed to save the informant but they all were also assaulted by the accused persons which fact has fully been supported by PWs 2, 3 and 5 also. The Doctor (PW 1), who had examined and treated the injuries on PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 corroborated the allegation made in the FIR. Some other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, who had assembled at the place of occurrence and who had also supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the witnesses are interested and corroborative to each other and merely because some of the witnesses are related to the informant, the same cannot dilute the prosecution case. 9. Such circumstances has rightly been considered by the trial Court while convicting the petitioners under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Appellate Court has also after proper appreciation of the evidence during trial, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is hereby sustained. 11. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1993 and have also for sometimes remained in custody out of maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months. 11. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1993 and have also for sometimes remained in custody out of maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months. In view of the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners, is modified to the period already undergone. 12. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Application dismissed.