Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 636 (JHR)

Govind Rai v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is present. 2. Since this case was admitted in the year 2002, the same is being disposed of in terms of the evidence available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.01.2001 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1991 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.05.1991 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. No. 1039 of 1986/T.R. No. 111 of 1990 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and four months respectively have been confirmed. 4. F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation that on 21.07.1986 while the informant and others were ploughing their field, the accused persons came over the field forming an unlawful assembly and armed with lathi and danda and started abusing the informant. On protest, the accused persons had assaulted the informant and other persons with lathi and by other means. Initially no F.I.R. was lodged, but after receiving the injury report a formal F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 325, 323 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Giridih for trail. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1Shova Mahto, P.W.9 Biswanath Mahto, P.W.10 Pramod Kumar Ram, P.W.11 Biswanath Mahto and P.W.12 Raman Prasad Verma are formal witnesses. P.W.7 Shiv Shankar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas, Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh (Medical Officer) is examined as P.W.8. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 claim to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.1Shova Mahto, P.W.9 Biswanath Mahto, P.W.10 Pramod Kumar Ram, P.W.11 Biswanath Mahto and P.W.12 Raman Prasad Verma are formal witnesses. P.W.7 Shiv Shankar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas, Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh (Medical Officer) is examined as P.W.8. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 claim to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. The defence in course of trial has tried to establish the fact that the informant did not have right, title and possession over the land in question and that there has been delay in instituting the F.I.R. From the evidences of prosecution witnesses especially P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, it appears that they have clearly stated that the land was purchased from Dilo Rai and Govind Rai in the name of grandmother of P.W.6, for which sale deed has also been executed, which has been marked as Ext.4. The evidences of aforesaid witnesses thus establishes the place of occurrence as well as the ownership of the land in question. So far as the alleged delay in instituting F.I.R. is concerned, the Investigating Officer in his evidence has clearly stated that on 21.07.1986 Sanha was instituted and the injured were sent to the Hospital and after receiving the injury report, formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The injured were also examined on 21.07.1986 by the doctor, who had found certain injuries on their person. The manner of occurrence and the role played by each of the petitioners have been specifically proved by the prosecution and apart from proving the place of occurrence, testimony of the witnesses with respect to the assault committed upon the informant have also been specifically proved by the medical evidence and, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. 6. The learned appellate court has also discussed the materials available on record before affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners. 7. However on the question of sentence, it appears that the occurrence was of the year 1986 and, thereafter, more than three decades have passed. Considering the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 8. 7. However on the question of sentence, it appears that the occurrence was of the year 1986 and, thereafter, more than three decades have passed. Considering the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.