Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 994 (JHR)

Fani Sikdar @ Fani Lal Raut v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-22

ANANDA SEN

body2017
JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. – The accused has been convicted in this case under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction in S.C. No. 40 of 2002, passed by 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda dated 10.02.2003, this appeal has been filed. 2. One Ram Khelawan Sah gave his statement before the police on 20.09.1992 at 12.30 hours, stating therein that he is a cook and works in a hotel of Anil Bhagat at Mohanpur Chowk. As usual, On 20.09.1992 at about 06.30 in the morning, he proceeded for hotel where at about 10 hours, he received information about assault at his house and then he went to his house by a Maxi where he found his daughter Mini Kumar in unconscious condition having injury over left eye and bleeding from her head. On inquiry, he came to know that his another daughter Pramila Kumari aged about 7 years, went to take a bath in canal where some quarrel took place between her and the children of Fani Sikdar. The children of Fani Sikdar returned weeping and told that Pramila was drowning them. On this, sister of Fani Sikdar, his mother and wife abused them by that time some child called Fani Sikdar, who armed with Lathi, came there chased the wife of the informant with intention to assault, who being afraid, bolted the door from inside leaving her daughter Mini Kumari outside, who was watching the occurrence. The accused then said to kill the daughter. Consequently, the sister, mother and wife of the accused Fani Sikdar first caught hold of the daughter of the informant and then Fani Sikdar assaulted her by Lathi due to which she received injuries as described above. Some villagers came there to rescue, who have seen the incident. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 90 of 1992, was instituted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections and cognizance was taken of the offences. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. The fardbeyan was also exhibited. 4. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections and cognizance was taken of the offences. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. The fardbeyan was also exhibited. After analysing the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 325 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Sections 342, 323, 307/34. However, the appellant has been released by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. by executing a bond of Rs. 1000/with two sureties for keeping peace and good behaviour. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction dated 10th February, 2003, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.CII, Godda in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2002, this instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence on record to convict the appellant under Section 325 IPC. He further submits that in fact, there are no eyewitnesses to the said occurrence. He further submits that the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent and there are major contradictions. He further submits that PWs2, 4, 6 & 9 have not supported the prosecution case. He claims that this appellant, being innocent, is liable to be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P argued that the prosecution has fully proved the occurrence and involvement of this appellant. He submits that the witnesses are consistent and the minor contradictions will not affect the prosecution case. He further submits that from the evidence the intention of the accused person is apparent that he wanted to kill the girl and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. 10. From analysing the evidence, I find that the incident initially began from the quarrel amongst the children of the accused and the informant, which ultimately resulted into the involvement of their respective parents. It is also evident that the appellant Fani Sikdar alone has committed the occurrence. 10. From analysing the evidence, I find that the incident initially began from the quarrel amongst the children of the accused and the informant, which ultimately resulted into the involvement of their respective parents. It is also evident that the appellant Fani Sikdar alone has committed the occurrence. PW1 Kaushalya Devi is the mother of the injured girl Mini Kumari, who, in her examination in chief, has stated that the occurrence started from the quarrel amongst the children who went to take bath at Canal. She further stated that thereafter, the mother, wife and sister of the accused Fani Sikdar came to her verandah and started abusing. Fani Sikdar came armed with Lathi, chased her but she entered inside her house and bolted the door leaving Mini Kumari outside, who was caught by the accused and assaulted by Lathi on her head causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, villagers came there and raised alarm. She further stated that the injured was treated at Mahagama Hospital, who identified all the accused persons. 11. PW2 Ram Khelawan is the informant as well as the father of Mini Kumari. He in his evidence, has admitted the fact that he was not present at the time of occurrence and he heard about the occurrence. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was working in the hotel of Anil Bhagat as a cook where Lakhan told him about the occurrence then he reached to his house and saw that his daughter Mini Kumari was in slight unconsciousness lying in Varandah in front of his house and there was injury on the back of her head. 12. PW3 Mini Kumari, is the injured witness. She, in her evidence, has stated that the occurrence took place 8 years back on Sunday at about 10 hours while she was in her Verandah. She further stated that some quarrel also took place at the Canal amongst Pramila, Chutari and son of Fani Sikdar. She further stated that Fani Sikdar chased her mother to assault with Lathi due to which her mother went inside the house and bolted the door leaving her outside in Verandah. Then, the accused persons namely, Bichiya, Parvati and Chinta caught hold of her and the appellant Fani Sikdar gave a Lathi blow on her head resulting into rupture. Thereafter, she became unconscious. She claimed to identify the accused Fani Sikdar and other also. Then, the accused persons namely, Bichiya, Parvati and Chinta caught hold of her and the appellant Fani Sikdar gave a Lathi blow on her head resulting into rupture. Thereafter, she became unconscious. She claimed to identify the accused Fani Sikdar and other also. In her cross-examination, she stated to have not given statement at hospital, rather recorded her statement at the residence of the Police Inspector. She denied the suggestion regarding false evidence. 13. Thus, from the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, i.e. PWs 1 to 3, I find that their evidence are consistent and the statements of each corroborates others. Thus, from their evidences, it is clear that the victim was assaulted by the appellant Fani Sikdar with an intention to kill her. 14. PW4 Hari Charan Mirdha has stated that the incident took place 8 years back on the day of Sunday at about 10 hours and on that time he was on duty. He further stated that he saw the injured Mini Kumari and there was bleeding on her head. Kaushalya Devi told him that Fani Sikdar has assaulted her. PW6 has been declared hostile. PW7 Pramila Kumar, another daughter of the informant has supported the prosecution case and stated on the same line as have been stated by PWs 1, 2 & 3. PWs 8 & 9 have also supported the case of the prosecution. The Doctors (PWs10 & 11), who examined the injured Mini Kumari found a lacerated wound on occipital region of head measuring 51 cm x cm x cm, pain and bruise on right forearm, bruise and swollen on upper side of left eye. The Doctor also found extensive sub-conjunctive hemorrhage on left eye with mark collides. 15. Thus, I find that there was no discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses, which also corroborates from the medical evidence. Thus, from the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts against this appellant. The Court below thus, has rightly convicted this appellant for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction needs no interference. 16. Since the petitioner has been released by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. by executing the bond of Rs. 16. Since the petitioner has been released by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. by executing the bond of Rs. 1000/with two sureties for keeping peace and good behaviour, he is directed to execute the same within one month from today. Consequently, the order of stay dated 13.03.2003, passed by this Court, is hereby vacated. 17. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.