Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1425 (JHR)

Ajay Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Miss Madhulika Dasgupta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and where-under, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.10.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla, in G.R. No. 765 of 2001 (T.R. No. 488 of 2004), convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 147, 353, 431 and 504 I.P.C. and sentencing them to various terms under the said sections, has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. It has also been submitted that there was a case and counter case against both the sides. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and no offence under section 147, 353, 431 and 504 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. An alternative argument has been made that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of prosecution case since 2001 and had remained in custody for some time. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has supported the impugned judgments. 5. The prosecution case as it appears from the F.I.R. is to the effect that when the informant along with other police officials reached Village Konbir, where circus show was going on, some visitors were fighting with each other and where a written report was given by one Vijay Kumar Singh, who had stated that boys of village Bhagidera Ghasi Toli had started dancing after consuming intoxicating drinks and when they were forbidden, petitioner No. 1 along with 30-40 villagers had assaulted Vijay Kumar and Ranglal Sao. On the basis of the said written report Basia P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 was instituted. It has further been stated that the parties had subsequently agreed for a compromise, but it is stated that when the petitioner No. 1 was going to the police station on 22.11.2001, the informant party of Basia P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 caught him on the way and assaulted him. It has further been stated that the parties had subsequently agreed for a compromise, but it is stated that when the petitioner No. 1 was going to the police station on 22.11.2001, the informant party of Basia P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 caught him on the way and assaulted him. It is also alleged that due to said occurrence Basia-Simdega road was jammed by the villagers of Bhagidera Ghasi Toli and they were abusing the administration in filthy language. On account of the said jam traffic was stalled for hours together and the administration was prevented from discharging their official duties, which subsequently led to institution of G.R. Case No. 765 of 2001. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after the cognizance was taken, charges were framed and trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Vidyanand Sharma had deposed on getting the informant about the occurrence, he reached the place of occurrence along with other constable and Hawaldar and found 50-60 villagers had jammed Ranchi-Simdega Road. P.W. 2 Mustafa Khan had also deposed that the villagers had blocked Ranchi-Simdegal road and they were raising slogans against the police officials. P.W. 3 Bhai Bharat Kumar who is the informant of the case has supported the case and has stated that some persons who were among the miscreants had jammed the road and they had prevented the police from discharging official duty. This witness had proved written report which has been marked as Ext. 1. He has further stated that after conciliation, blockade was removed from Basia-Simdega road, but again the people of Bhagidera Ghasi Toli village blocked the Ranchi-Simdega main road. P.W. 4 Harishankar Ram has also supported the prosecution case with respect to the blockade made by the villagers of Bhagidera Ghasi Toli. P.W. 5 is Mahendra Prasad Ram who has stated that he was the investigating officer of Basia P.S. Case No. 45 of 2001 and during investigation he had recorded the statement of the accused persons and he had investigated the present case in which charge sheet against the petitioners was submitted by him. 7. P.W. 5 is Mahendra Prasad Ram who has stated that he was the investigating officer of Basia P.S. Case No. 45 of 2001 and during investigation he had recorded the statement of the accused persons and he had investigated the present case in which charge sheet against the petitioners was submitted by him. 7. It thus appears that the petitioners along with villagers of Bhagidera Ghasi Toli had blocked the Ranchi-Simdega main road on the ground that the persons, who had assaulted the petitioner No. 1, when he had gone to compromise the case in connection with Basia P.S. Case No. 45 of 2001, were not arrested. The evidence of the witnesses clearly and categorically reveals that the petitioners had taken part in blocking the road by forming an unlawful assembly, as all the witnesses had seen the occurrence. It further appears that on account of blockade made by the villagers of Bhagidera Ghasi Toli, the traffic was stalled for hours and the police officials were abused and prevented from discharging their official duties. 8. Considering the fact that sufficient evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 147, 353, 431 and 504 I.P.C. which was also affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, the same is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the prosecution case since 2001 and they have remained in custody for some time and considering the nature of allegation, the order of sentence passed against them 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.