Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2201 (JHR)

Mukul Bhagat v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 07/2001 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-Xth, Ranchi, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2000 (sentence pronounced on 20.12.2000) passed by the learned Ist Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranchi in S.T. No. 344/1991, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2492/1988, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 508/1988, (T.R. No. 77/1995), Trial No. 17/2000, convicting the petitioner for the offences under section 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years under each of the Sections which are to run concurrently has been affirmed. 3. The First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the informant who had superannuated from service as District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad started residing in his ancestral house at Ranchi. It is alleged that the informant had filed partition suit with regard to the ancestral properties for which the petitioner and his father were annoyed. It is alleged that on 18.08.1988 at about 7:30 a.m. while the informant and his son were working in the chamber and his younger son studying the petitioner came and attacked with a spear on Priya Ranjan Bhagat which was fended off with his right hand. It is alleged that Santosh Lal Bhagat with a small fire arm was instigating the petitioner to kill the informant and others. It is alleged that the informant and his two sons caught hold of the accused and confined them in the chamber. In the scuffle that ensued accused Santosh Lal Bhagat received injury on his face. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Kotwali P.S. Case No. 508/1988 was instituted under section 448/323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and upon taking of cognisance on transfer a prima facie case was found under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code which resulted in commitment of the case to the court of sessions where charge was framed under section 307/452/323 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Ranjeet Lal Bhagat is the informant who has stated that he is staying along with his family in his ancestral home in Vishnu Cinema Lane. He has stated that the western portion is allotted to his share while the eastern portion is allotted to the share of his brother Santosh Lal Bhagat. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he, his son Priya Ranjan Bhagat and his younger son Rakesh Ranjan were in his chamber when the petitioner entered with a spear. He has further stated that the petitioner attacked on the chest of Priya Ranjan Bhagat but it was fended off resulting in injury on the right hand. This witness also claims to have sustained injury on his face while trying to snatch the spear. He has further stated that the petitioner and his father had also assaulted his two sons with fists and slaps and both the accused persons had also suffered injuries due to the scuffle with his sons. P.W.2 Priya Ranjan Bhagat is the son of the informant who has supported the manner of occurrence as stated by P.W.1. He has further stated that in the year 1987 he and his brother had filed partition suit for the ancestral property which was decreed in part. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused persons had filed various cases. P.W.3 Rakesh Ranjan is also an injured eye-witness who had supported the prosecution case. P.W.4 Dr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, had found injuries on the person of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. This witness had also examined the petitioner and Santosh Lal Bhagat and both of them had suffered simple injuries. P.W.5 Jaisa Lal Hirji Chauhan has been tendered by the prosecution and so has P.W.6 Om Prakash Pachisia. P.W.7 Braj Bihari Lal Jaiswal has stated that on the date of occurrence while he was returning after morning walk he had seen the informant and his family members having surrounded Santosh Lal Bhagat. He has stated that after some time the Police had arrived at the scene. P.W.8 Shiv Kumar Pathak is the Investigating Officer of the case who had recovered one spear from the office of the informant. He has stated that after some time the Police had arrived at the scene. P.W.8 Shiv Kumar Pathak is the Investigating Officer of the case who had recovered one spear from the office of the informant. This witness had proved the place of occurrence and he has stated that the place of occurrence in the present case and Kotwali P.S. Case No. 507/1988 is same. 6. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be relied upon as they are interested witnesses. Learned senior counsel further submits that admittedly there was animosity between the parties on account of partition of property and therefore the false implication cannot be ruled out. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. The evidence of the informant P.W.1 has been corroborated by his sons P.W.2 and P.W.3 who all were injured on account of the assault committed by the petitioner and his father. P.W.7 is an independent witness who had stated about some incident which was going on as he had seen Santosh Lal Bhagat being surrounded by the informant and others. The allegation of assaulting with the spear has further been fortified by the fact that the Investigating Officer had recovered the spear from the chamber of the informant. The incident also seems to have been substantiated in view of the fact that Kotwali P.S. Case No. 507/1988 was lodged against the informant and others. The question of false implication does not arise in view of the incident having been proved to have taken place as also the witnesses having supported the manner of occurrence by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner being falsely implicated by the informant and others is ruled out. In such circumstances, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 452/324 of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed in appeal and the same is, hereby, sustained. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 452/324 of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed in appeal and the same is, hereby, sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1988 and has also remained for some time in custody. On consideration of the aforesaid fact the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.