Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1848 (JHR)

Harihar Prasad Verma v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-02

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 11, are present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 203 of 1993 whereby and where-under the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that with respect to a salai tree there was dispute between both the sides. It has been alleged that the accused persons were engaged in taking away pieces of the said tree and on protest made by the informant he was along with his family members were assaulted. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Hirodih P.S. Case No. 28 of 1990 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to Court of Sessions and the charge was framed under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In course of trial the prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses. P. W.-1, Sukar Mahto, is a villager who had stated that at the relevant point of time the accused persons were present at the place of occurrence for taking away the tree which had fallen down in a storm. He had further stated that when the informant objected the accused persons had assaulted him as well as his family members which caused several injuries to them. In cross-examination, he had stated that the tree had fallen down in Khata No. 21 but he showed his ignorance when asked as to whether said plot of land belongs to the accused persons or not. He had further disclosed that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 was also initiated between both the sides. P.W.-2, Harihar Pd. In cross-examination, he had stated that the tree had fallen down in Khata No. 21 but he showed his ignorance when asked as to whether said plot of land belongs to the accused persons or not. He had further disclosed that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 was also initiated between both the sides. P.W.-2, Harihar Pd. Verma, is the informant who had stated that after a tree had fallen down in Khata No. 21 Plot No. 159 during storm the accused persons had begun to cut the log of the tree which was objected to by this witness and as a retaliation he was severely assaulted and so were his family members. P.W.-3, Somri Devi, is the grand-mother of the informant who had supported the prosecution case and had stated that she was also assaulted by the accused persons. This witness had further stated in her cross-examination that the tree was standing in the land of the accused Uttim Rai. P.W.-4, Dr. Anand Kumar Prasad, had examined the injured Somri Devi, Dwarika Pd. Verma and Harihar Verma on 30.07.1990. This witness had found swelling and tenderness on the wrist of Somri Devi and the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. Some bruises were found on the forearm and back of the informant which was also opined to be simple in nature. So far as Dwarika Prasad Verma is concerned, incised wounds were found on his skull apart from other injuries and injury No. 3 was opined to be grievous caused by heard and blunt substance. This witness had proved Exhibit-1 series which are the injury reports. P.W.-5, Arun Kumar Sahay, is the Investigating Officer, who had proved the formal First Information Report marked as Exhibit-2. This witness had visited the place of occurrence and had taken the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and obtained the injury report and having been found the allegation made against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 to be true had submitted charge-sheet against them. P.W.-6, Dwarika Pd. This witness had visited the place of occurrence and had taken the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and obtained the injury report and having been found the allegation made against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 to be true had submitted charge-sheet against them. P.W.-6, Dwarika Pd. Verma, is an eye-witness who had stated that he had planted Salai tree on his land which had fallen down on account of storm and when the accused persons had tried to cut the log the same was objected to by the informant and this witness as a result of which he as well as several persons suffered injuries on account of the assault made by the accused persons. This witness had stated that there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 with respect to the land in question. He had admitted that Khata No. 21 is recorded in the name of the ancestor of the accused persons. He had further stated that the petitioner No. 10 (Lokan Rai) had given only one Farsa blow and none of the other accused persons had assaulted him with a Farsa. This witness had further stated about the cases pending between both the sides. 6. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 16.09.2005 had acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 from the charges levelled against them on the ground that the informant parties were the aggressors and it had been proved in course of evidence that the land where the Salai tree was standing belongs to the ancestors of the accused persons. The learned trial court had also taken into consideration that there was no repetition of blow and in fact there was no preplanned motive on the part of the accused persons to attempt to commit the murder of the informant and others. It further appears that one of the brothers of the informant namely Ashok Verma who was also said to have been injured was never examined by the doctor nor any injury report was produced with respect to the injury suffered by him. 7. It is an admitted fact as could be detected from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that there was previous dispute already in existence between both sides and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 was also instituted. 7. It is an admitted fact as could be detected from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that there was previous dispute already in existence between both sides and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 was also instituted. The evidence of P.W.-5 is clear and categorical to the effect that Plot No. 21 over which the tree was standing belongs to the ancestors of the accused. It further appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as has been stated above it was rightly held by the learned trial court that there was no premeditated plan on the part of the accused persons to commit assault upon the informant party. Since it has been indubitably proved that the plot in question belongs to the ancestors of the accused and the informant party were found to be the aggressors claiming the tree which had fallen down on account of the storm and in the backdrop of the civil proceeding between both sides and the enmity having been established beyond doubt, the learned trial court had rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.