Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 337 (JHR)

Kameshwar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-15

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.8.2000, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Cr. Appeal No. 42/90, whereby and whereunder, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 917 of 1984 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 148, 147, 447 and 323 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them accordingly has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a land dispute existing prior to the occurrence and that the petitioners have falsely been implicated on account of such land dispute. It has further been submitted that there is no consistent evidence brought forward by the prosecution. It has also been submitted that injuries suffered by the informant party were also found to be simple in nature. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the period of sentence be modified in view of the fact that petitioners are facing rigors of the prosecution case since 1984 and have remained in custody for some time. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It appears that an FIR was instituted with respect to an occurrence, which had taken place on 2.7.1984, wherein it was alleged that the petitioners forcibly came armed with various weapons and caused assault upon the informant party leading to injury suffered by the informant and his brothers. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No. 917 of 1984 was instituted, upon which, investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance, case was committed to the court of learned S.D.J.M, Daltonganj, wherein after trial, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under sections 148, 147, 447, 323 and they were acquitted for the offence under sections 379/440 of IPC. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 1990 , which however, was dismissed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj on 16.8.2000. 6. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the investigating officer as well as other injured witnesses. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 1990 , which however, was dismissed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj on 16.8.2000. 6. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the investigating officer as well as other injured witnesses. P.W-5-Ramchandra Singh is the informant and the injured who had categorically stated about the assault committed upon him by the accused persons. P.W-6-Laxman Sao is the brother of P.W-5, who is also an injured witness and who had stated on similar lines. P.W-7 -Jagdish Sao is also an injured witness who had deposed that the injury was caused on five parts of his body. P.W-8-Krishna Prasad had also deposed about the assault committed by the accused persons. P.Ws. 1 and 2 namely Ramgati Dusadh and Sita Ram had stated that they had come to know subsequently about the incident, which had taken place. P.W-9-Dr. Surendra Prasad had examined P.Ws-5, 7 and 8 and had proved the injury report, which was marked as Ext-2 to 2/3. P.W-10 is the Investigating Officer of this case, who had proved the place of occurrence. The evidence of doctor, P.W.-9 clearly corroborates testimony of P.Ws 5, 6, 7 and 8 with respect to the assault committed upon the informant and his brothers. There being consistent evidence with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence, they were rightly convicted by the learned trial court and subsequently affirmed by the learned appellate court. There being no reasons to interfere with the order of conviction, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed so far as the challenge, which has been made to the order of conviction is concerned. 7. However, as regards the order of sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioners, is concerned, it appears that petitioners have been implicated for the offence under Sections 148, 147, 447 and 323 of I.P.C. and maximum sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioners, is six months R.I. The petitioners have remained in custody for some period. The petitioners are facing rigors of prosecution case for more than three decades. Considering the facts stated above, the petitioners are definitely entitled to a reduction in sentence, which has been awarded to them. In the circumstances, the period of sentence is modified to the period already undergone. The petitioners are facing rigors of prosecution case for more than three decades. Considering the facts stated above, the petitioners are definitely entitled to a reduction in sentence, which has been awarded to them. In the circumstances, the period of sentence is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.