Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 304 (JHR)

Baneshwar Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-13

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1990/82 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Pakur convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 147/448/323 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 3 months for each of the charges has been affirmed. 3. An FIR was instituted by one Dipti Hembram who was examined as P.W. 6 wherein it was alleged that the accused persons assaulted him as well as one Chotu Hembram (P.W. 2) and Matla Hembram (P.W. 4) with lathi and sabal on 22.04.1985. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after cognizance was taken, case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate 2nd class, Pakur who was pleased to convict the petitioners under Sections 147/448/323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 months for each of the charges levelled against them. The appeal preferred by them being Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1990/82 of 1993 was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as well as the injured persons are related to each other, since one Kati Hembram who happens to be relative of the informant was staying as wife with the petitioner no. 2. It is stated that the main allegation was levelled against Anil Marandi of assaulting the injured persons including Dipti Hembram as well as Chotu Hembram who have suffered grievous injury on account of assault. He further submits that the I.O. of the case has not been examined. Further submission has been made that so far as the petitioners are concerned, there appears to be no specific allegation against them and in fact the injury report of P.W. Nos. 2, 4 and 6 would totally falsify the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward an alternative argument to the effect that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the period of sentence, the petitioner may be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2, 4 and 6 would totally falsify the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward an alternative argument to the effect that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the period of sentence, the petitioner may be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Based on the consistent evidence as on record, both oral and documentary, it would show that the petitioners were involved in the act of assault upon P.W. Nos. 2, 4 and 6. It appears that the prosecution has mostly relied upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2, 4 & 6 Dipti Hembram, the informant; all of whom were injured and all of whom have supported the prosecution case so far as the manner of assault and the persons involved in commission of offence. It is submitted that the main allegation of assault by sabal has been levelled against Anil Marandi who as per the learned counsel died during the course of trial. The petitioners are alleged to be present at the place of occurrence when the occurrence was taking place and have also said to have participated in the assault upon P.W. Nos. 2, 4 & 6. The evidence of the Doctor who had been examined as P.W. 7 substantiates the prosecution case to the effect that the P.W. Nos. 2, 4 & 6 – all were found to have suffered some injuries and although most of the injuries were found to be simple in nature, but so far as one of the injuries which was suffered by the P.W. 2 – Chotu Hembram, the same was found to be grievous in nature and the same can be attributed to the main accused Anil Marandi. In view of the consistency of evidence brought by the prosecution and which has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners does not necessitate any interference. 6. However as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners which is of 3 months R.I. , it appears that the petitioners had merely participated in the occurrence as the main allegation of committing assault against the 3 injured persons have been levelled against Anil Marandi. It further appears that both the parties are related to each other. However as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners which is of 3 months R.I. , it appears that the petitioners had merely participated in the occurrence as the main allegation of committing assault against the 3 injured persons have been levelled against Anil Marandi. It further appears that both the parties are related to each other. The petitioner are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1985. 7. Considering the circumstances enumerated above, the nature of offence and the fact that no previous conviction has been made against the petitioners, it would be just and appropriate to give the petitioners the benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act after giving due admonition. 8. As a result of discussion made hereinabove, this application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.