Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2135 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-11

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - The appellants have faced the trial in G.R. No. 3009/1995 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 656/1995 dated 17.08.1995, registered under section 147, 341 and 323 of the IPC and under section 3(i)(x) and 3(i)(xi) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the court of Sri O.P. Pandey No. 1, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad, who by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2004 acquitted them from the charges under Section 3(i)(x) and 3(i)(xi) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but held them guilty under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC and awarded them a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 341 of the IPC and Rs. 500/- each under section 323 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo S.I for 4 months each. 2. It appears that this appeal has been filed on 25.01.2005 and thereafter, it was admitted for hearing on 24.03.2005. From perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that the appellants have already deposited the fine amount. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Fardbeyan of the victim-Sunita Kumari was recorded on 17.08.2005 in which she had alleged that on 16.08.1995 at about 4.00 p.m. when she went to fetch a rope from her house to tie buffalo, meanwhile the appellant, namely, Ashok Kumar and three sons of Shankar Chamar came and started abusing her by taking her caste name and assaulted her with slaps and fists due to which she received injuries. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation a case was instituted under section 147, 341, 323/34 of the IPC and section 3(i)(x) and 3(i)(xi) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the final form has been submitted on 17.07.2000 against all these appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants by assailing the impugned judgment has placed the evidence of PW-1, namely, Sunita Kumari, who in her fardbeyan has supported the prosecution case but in her cross-examination at para-3 she has admitted that there was old enmity between the brother of appellant-Ashok Singh, namely, Uday Singh with her parents and a case is also pending between them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that neither the fardbeyan nor the injury received by the victim-Sunita Kumari was proved by the prosecution nor any witness has supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that the conviction of the appellants is unmerited and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand, learned APP has referred the evidence of PW-1-Sunita Kumari and submitted that she has supported the prosecution case in the court while she was examined. 9. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the records of the case, it appears that save and except PW-1-Sunita Kumari, no other witness has supported the prosecution case as also neither the fardbeyan of PW-1 was proved nor any injury report was brought on record while considering the evidence of PW-1. 10. From perusal of the evidence of PW-1-Sunita Kumari, it appears that there was old enmity between the appellant-Ashok Kumar and the parents of the PW-1-Sunita Kumari. 11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstance of the case, I find that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2004 and also the order regarding payment of fine is hereby set aside. 13. However, the appellants are directed to file a proper application before the trail court for refund of the fine amount which has been earlier deposited by them.