Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 637 (JHR)

Vishawnath Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2001 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1995 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau in G.R. No. 737 of 1991 (T.R. No. 459 of 1995) convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months, 4 months and 15 days respectively have been confirmed. 3. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation that there was some quarrel between P.W.1 and petitioner no.2. It is alleged that at about 07:00 p.m. when the informant and his brother were returning to home, the accused persons surrounded them and there were exchange of hot words and subsequently petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 assaulted the informant by means of lathi and on protest being made by Krishna Mahto, he was also assaulted by some of the accused persons. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 737 of 1991 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. 4. The appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1995 by the petitioners was dismissed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau on 25.04.2001 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court was confirmed. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below have not properly considered the material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below have not considered the fact that the occurrence took place at 07:00 p.m. and there was no source of light and as such there is possibility of misidentification of the petitioners. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the medical evidence is contrary to the injuries so suffered. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that genesis of the occurrence had also not been proved by the prosecution. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the medical evidence is contrary to the injuries so suffered. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that genesis of the occurrence had also not been proved by the prosecution. In absence of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the petitioners deserve acquittal. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. 7. It appears that the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in support of the case. P.W.1 Krishna Mahto has fully supported the prosecution story and clearly stated about the injuries suffered by him as well as by the informant P.W.6 (Kedar Mahto). P.W.2Bipat Ram has also supported the prosecution case and the story of assault by the petitioners upon the informant and his brother. P.W.3 Maldeo Ram has also stated that the petitioners have assaulted the informant and his brother. P.W.4Malti Devi and P.W.5 Ramjee Mahto have also supported the prosecution case and corroborated what has been stated by other witnesses. P.W.6, who is informant, has categorically stated about the role played by each of the petitioners and the injuries sustained by him as well as by his brother Krishna Mahto (P.W.1). P.W.7 Dr. Arjun Prasad has found several injuries on the person of the informant and his brother. The injury reports have been marked as Ext.2 and Ext. 2/1. The injuries sustained by the informant P.W.6 and his brother P.W.1 are fully corroborated by the doctor. All the prosecution witnesses have supported and corroborated each other''s statement. 8. The learned courts below have rightly come to the conclusion by convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners. 9. However, with respect to the sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned, it appears that they are facing the rigors of prosecution since 1991 and they had remained for some time in custody. 10. The injuries sustained by the informant P.W.6 (Kedar Mahto) and his brother P.W.1 (Krishna Mahto) are simple in nature as opined by the doctor. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 11. 10. The injuries sustained by the informant P.W.6 (Kedar Mahto) and his brother P.W.1 (Krishna Mahto) are simple in nature as opined by the doctor. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.