Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 893 (JHR)

Anil Toppo @ Anil Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-07

ANANDA SEN, PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY

body2017
JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. (C.A.V.) - Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. All the appellants stood convicted for committing the offence under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Gumla vide order dated 27.03.2004 and 29.03.2004 respectively, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1997, (arising out of Chainpur P.S.Case No. 35 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. No. 804 of 1995). 2. Though this case was to be heard by the Single Bench as per Jharkhand High Court Rules as all the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, but, since there is case and counter case arising out of the same offence in which the informant of the present appeal is accused in other appeal [Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 724 of 204] and has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and whose appeal lies before the Division Bench, this appeal was directed to be heard by the Division Bench along with Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 724 of 2004. 3. A first information was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Irniyus Tigga (PW9) on 10.11.1995, stating therein that on the same day in the morning he, along with his wife Bibiyani Tigga, daughter Manjila Tigga and son Mohan Tigga, Nicolas Tigga, Iiginus Tigga, Ajit Tigga, Apolina Tigga, went to their field (Dumar Done) for cutting paddy crop. When they were cutting crop meanwhile resident of their village Balasuis Kujur, Rafail Kujur, Arun Kujur, Michal Tigga, Atwa Mahto, Elisaba Kujur, Saniyaro Kujur, Bhikhu Rawatia, Anil Oraon and Albert Ekka came there variously armed with Gulel, Danda, Bow and Arrow, Tangi etc. and started assaulting them. Rafail Kujur assaulted him with Tangi on his right back, Balasuis Kujur and Arun Kujur assaulted Nicolas and when Eigniuis Tigga tried to save him, he was also assaulted by both by means of Tangi and Danda on his hand. Nicolas snatched the Danda from Arun then Anil Oraon started running then all fled away and straightway came to Chainpur Hospital for treatment 4. Nicolas snatched the Danda from Arun then Anil Oraon started running then all fled away and straightway came to Chainpur Hospital for treatment 4. On the aforementioned written report, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. No. 804/1995, was registered against the accused persons. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court and cognizance was taken. After complying all the provisions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 6. The charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 307, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal code and they were put on trial as they pleaded not guilty. Albert Ekka died on 11.11.1995, i.e. on the next day of occurrence and, therefore, he was not sent up for trial. During course of trial Etwa Mahto also died and his case was dropped vide order dated 26.08.2002. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether eleven prosecution witnesses and also exhibited several documents. PW1 is Elginius Tigga. PW2 is Nicolas Tigga, PW3 is Ajit Tigga, PW4 is John Tigga, PW5 is Manjela Tigga, PW6 is Apolina Tigga, PW7 is Bibiyani Tigga, the wife of the informant Iriniyus Tigga, PW8 is Mukund Rawatia, PW9 Iriniyus Tigga is the informant of the case, PW10 is Dr. Gyan Prakash and PW11 is Rajendra Jha a formal witness. Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. 8. The following documents were exhibited in this case: Prosecution (i) Order dated 18.11.2003, Passed by D.C., Gumla in Mutation Revision No. 55R15/ 200203, Ext6; (ii) Certified copy of Khatian of Khata No. 31 in the name of Tija Oraon, Ext.7; (iii) Order dated 14.12.1994 in Misc. Case No. 939/94, passed by SDO, Gumla, Ext.8 (iv) Order dated 11.08.2000 of Complaint Case No. C 124/95, passed by the then learned J.M. 1st Class, Ext9; (v) Judgment dated 13.08.1998 of Complaint Case No. 5/95, Ext.10; Defence (vi) Certified copy of deposition of Dr. Gyan Prakash (PW11) in S.T. No. 90/1996; Ext.A (vii) Injury reports of Michal Tigga, Rafail Kujur and Balasuis Kujur; Ext.B, B/1 & B/2; (viii) FIR of S.T. No. 90/1996, Ext.C and Ext C/ 1 is the Fardbeyan of S.T. No. 90 of 1996; (ix) Fardbeyan of Irniyus Tigga, Ext1. 9. Gyan Prakash (PW11) in S.T. No. 90/1996; Ext.A (vii) Injury reports of Michal Tigga, Rafail Kujur and Balasuis Kujur; Ext.B, B/1 & B/2; (viii) FIR of S.T. No. 90/1996, Ext.C and Ext C/ 1 is the Fardbeyan of S.T. No. 90 of 1996; (ix) Fardbeyan of Irniyus Tigga, Ext1. 9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. After analyzing the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the trial court vide its judgment dated 27.03.2004 convicted all the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 29.03.2004 sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 11. Being aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellants, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State . 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are absolutely innocent and there is no material to convict them for the said offences. He assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there are several contradictions in the statement of eye witnesses, which creates doubt on the prosecution case. He further submits that the evidence of ocular witnesses have not been supported by the medical evidence, which caused serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and as such, the place and manner of occurrence has not been proved. Lastly, he submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, they deserve to be acquitted. 14. On the other hand, learned APP opposing the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, submits that though the investigating officer has not been examined in this case but it is admitted that for the alleged occurrence there was case and counter case by both the sides, which proves the incident. He further submits that irrespective of some minor contradictions the ocular evidence was otherwise consistent and their evidence was supported by the medical evidence. He further submits that irrespective of some minor contradictions the ocular evidence was otherwise consistent and their evidence was supported by the medical evidence. He further submits that the learned trial court rightly rejected the plea of right of private defence of the appellants as the injuries found on their bodies were simple in nature and, thereby, the conviction of the appellants is absolutely justified and their appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire lower court records including the depositions and exhibits. It appears that the first information report was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Irniyus Tigga (PW9) against appellants. PW9 Irniyus Tigga is the informant as well as the injured eyewitness to the occurrence. He supported the statement given in the fardbeyan and stated on the same line as has been stated in the fardbeyan. He, in his evidence, has stated that on 10.11.1995 he along with others was cutting paddy in his field when suddenly all the appellants/accused variously armed with Bow and Arrow, Axe, Danda, Ballam and Gulel reached there and started assaulting them. Firstly they used Bow and Arrow and Gulel. He further stated that he was assaulted by Rafail with Tangi on the right side of his back. He further stated that Balisius assaulted Nicolas and Iiginuis with Tangi on their head and Arun with Danda on the right elbow and left hand of Nicolas and Anil assaulted Ajit with Danda on his forehead and Saniyaro on his left thumb. On hulla Mukund Rawatia came and inquired about the same and then they went to hospital after drinking water. He denied the suggestion regarding possession of the land by father of Rafail and Balisius since 1932 and he also denied the suggestion that on hulla villagers of Jamgai assembled there and stopped the fighting. 16. PW1 Algenuis Tigga, PW2 Nicolas Tigga, PW3 Ajit Tigga, PW4 John Tigga, PW5 Manjela Tigga, PW6 Apolina Tigga and PW7 Bibiayani Tigga the wife of the informant (PW9), they all have corroborated the statement of the informant (PW9). They all have stated about the time, date and manner of occurrence on the same line as has been stated by the informant. They all have stated about the time, date and manner of occurrence on the same line as has been stated by the informant. They denied the suggestion that the accused were standing in the field of Mukund Rawatia and tried to prevent them from cutting the crop and they have assaulted the accused resulting injuries on the person of the accused and death of Albert Ekka. 17. PW8 is Mukund Rawatia. He, in his deposition, has stated that the occurrence took place 9 years ago on Friday at about 9 a.m. and at that time he was in his home and after hearing hulla he went there and had seen that about 10 persons were running. He identified Balasius, Rafail, Arun, wife of Rafail. Balasius and Rafail were holding Tangi on their hand and Saniyaro and Arun were holding Lathi on their hand. The informant and his family members were present there. He had seen the bleeding injuries on the person of the injured. He further stated that they have told that Balisius, Rafail, Arun and wife of Rafail have assaulted them. He claimed that he had stated the name of the accused to the police. He denied that on the disputed land Irniyus and others were cutting paddy crops and the accused and his family tried to stop them. 18. PW10 is Dr. Gyan Prakash. He stated that on 10.11.1995 he was posted at Chainpur Primary Health Centre as Medical Officer-in-Charge and at about 1.30 p.m. he examined the injured Irinyus Tigga, Nicolas Tigga, Elginus Tigga and Ajit Tigga and found several lacerated wound on the person of the injured and also swelling and tenderness. As per the opinion of the Doctor injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon as also by hard and blunt substance like Tangi, Lathi and back portion of Tangi. He proved the injury report as Ext. 2/3. In his crossexamination nothing substantial has been stated by this witness. 19. PW11 is Rajendra Jha, who is an advocates'' clerk and formal witness. He has proved two rent receipts in the writing of Peter Minz, Ext3 and 3/1 and two other rent receipts in the writing and signature of Gondul Baraik, Ext.3/ 2 and 3/3. He has also proved the fardbeyan in the writing of Lodga Murmu, formal FIRExt5 is in the writing and signature of Lodga Murmu. 20. He has proved two rent receipts in the writing of Peter Minz, Ext3 and 3/1 and two other rent receipts in the writing and signature of Gondul Baraik, Ext.3/ 2 and 3/3. He has also proved the fardbeyan in the writing of Lodga Murmu, formal FIRExt5 is in the writing and signature of Lodga Murmu. 20. From analyzing the evidence led by both the parties, we find that it has come in evidence that the informant parties were cutting paddy crops and these appellants reached at the place of occurrence to stop them. As the appellants tried to stop them, there was a free fight between both the sides. From the evidence it is also clear that all these appellants were armed with different weapons like Hasua, Tangi, Barchha, Balua, Lathi etc. etc. The details of the assault have been described by each of the witnesses. The injured witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution with regard to assault, which had taken place. It appears that there was land dispute between the parties since the year 1995. It has also come in the evidence that the informant''s party had also received injuries. We find that learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment, has observed that there was a long standing land dispute between the informant and the accused persons. It has also been observed that there are several cases between the parties, which we also find from different documents, which have been exhibited in this case. These documents clearly go to suggest that it is an admitted fact that there was a serious land dispute between the parties. From the evidence adduced, it is also clear that the informant and others were harvesting the crop and the appellants reached there to stop them for doing so. It is admitted that the Doctor found several injuries on the person of the injured. The injuries were also found upon the accused persons. As observed earlier, there was a case and counter case for the said offence as there was bonafide land dispute between the parties. The learned Court below also came to a finding that the entire incident took place in spur of the moment in which both the sides sustained injuries and Albert Ekka lost his life. 21. As observed earlier, there was a case and counter case for the said offence as there was bonafide land dispute between the parties. The learned Court below also came to a finding that the entire incident took place in spur of the moment in which both the sides sustained injuries and Albert Ekka lost his life. 21. After analyzing the said finding and after analyzing the evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, their conviction of the said offence is hereby upheld. So far as sentence is concerned, the same needs to be modified. This modification is in view of the fact that there was bonafide land dispute between the parties. This Court thus modifies the sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period they have already undergone. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification of the sentence.