Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1286 (JHR)

Jatru Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-27

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 10.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FT, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2001 whereby and where under the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 792 of 1995 by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. and the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years whereas petitioner nos. 4 & 5 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradictions between the evidences of the witnesses and no independent witness has been examined and all the witnesses are related to each other. He further submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity existing between the parties. An alternative argument has been put forward by the petitioner that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1995 and has also remained for 4 and half months in custody and if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be reduced considering the aforesaid facts. 4. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that while the informant was returning to his village along with Soma Oraon and Budhwa Oraon, it is said that near the house of Jhubu Singh, all the accused persons had assaulted the informant with tangi and lathi causing injuries upon him. Based upon the aforesaid allegation, G. R. No. 792 of 1995 was instituted. After investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and on being transferred charge was framed under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. and trial proceeded. 6. Since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various terms. 6. Since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various terms. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2001 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.), Ranchi on 10.09.2004. 7. In course of trial, 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 - Soma Oraon has supported the prosecution case and has stated that he along with P.W. 2 Budhwa Oraon was accompanying the informant, when they were returning to the village and near the house of Jhubu Singh, all the accused persons came variously armed with tangi and lathi and assaulted the informant. He further submitted that he was also assaulted by the accused persons. P.W. 2 has also stated on similar terms as what has been stated by P.W. 1 with respect to the returning to village by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 and the assault committed by the accused persons on P.W. 4. P.W. 3-Md. Kalam is a formal witness who has proved the formal FIR which was marked as Exhibit 1. P.W. 4 is the informant and the injured who has stated that when he was returning to his village after offering flowers during the Sarhul festival along with P.W. 1 and 2, the accused persons variously armed had indiscriminately started assaulting him. This witness has stated that several injuries were inflicted on various parts of his body. He has further stated that on being informed he was taken to hospital for his treatment. P.W. 5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and the I.O. of the case who after recording the statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. P.W. 6 is the doctor who had examined the informant P.W. 4 and he has also proved injury report which has been marked as exhibit 2. This witness has stated that the informant had sustained several injuries with a lathi on his eyes on his knee as well as on his right hand. 8. The defence has examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case and most of the witnesses have stated about the fact that the petitioner no. 1 was the Pahan and not the informant. 8. The defence has examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case and most of the witnesses have stated about the fact that the petitioner no. 1 was the Pahan and not the informant. 9. On perusal of the evidences adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence, it appears that the factum of assault committed upon the P.W. 4 has been supported by the evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 as well as by the medical evidence being P.W. 6. The petitioners have been specifically named by P.W. 1, 2 & 4 of having taken part in the assault with various weapons upon the person of the informant and Exhibit 2 which is the injury report suggests that several injuries were suffered by the informant, although some were found to be simple in nature. The ocular evidences therefore, corroborates the medical evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witnesses has been examined, it appears that P.W. 1 & 2 were accompanying P.W. 4 while returning back to the village and the evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 are corroborative to each other and also clearly points to the act of the petitioner of committing assault upon P.W. 4. So far as the question of enmity is concerned, the defence has relied upon the judgment passed by the Sub-Judge V, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 250 of 1982. In the said judgment, the claim of the accused of being Pahan has been declined. The enmity as stated itself is a double edged sword and cuts both ways; merely a suit was filed, the same does not dilute the case that the incident had not taken place. The evidences of P.W. 1 & 2 supported by the evidences of P.W. 4 as well as by the evidence of P.W. 6 clearly reveals that the petitioner had taken part in the incident which led to the informant having suffered various injuries. Such facts have properly appreciated by the trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of materials available on record affirmed the judgment. 10. Such facts have properly appreciated by the trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of materials available on record affirmed the judgment. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. 11. However, with respect to sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since 1995 and they also remained in custody for 4 and half months. The injury which has been suffered by the informant was opined to be simple in nature. Considering the long efflux of time after institution of the criminal case against the petitioners and the mental agony which they must have suffered on account of pendency of criminal prosecution, the period of sentenced imposed upon them is modified to the period already undergone in custody. 12. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.