Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1609 (JHR)

Rajendra Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2018-07-24

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
ORDER : 1. As both these acquittal appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant, learned counsel for the State as also learned senior counsel for the accused respondents in both these appeals. 3. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 18th September, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2012, whereby the accused respondents, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 341, 325, 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been found guilty only for the offence under Sections 323 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and were acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, they were given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and were released after due admonition. 4. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the accused respondents were not convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In Acquittal Appeal No. 31 of 2017, I.A. No. 8547 of 2017 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Since Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2018 is filed after a delay of 98 days, I.A. No. 3962 of 2018 has been filed for condonation of this delay, and I.A. No. 1988 of 2018 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 6. According to the prosecution case, as revealed from the impugned Judgment, a written report was submitted by the informant appellant at the Police Station on 14.12.2010, stating that on 13.12.2010 at about 2.00 P.M., the informant along with one Baban Thakur, had gone to cast vote at Chaukri Middle School voting booth, where there was an altercation with the accused persons, as the accused persons asked them as to in whose favour they were going to vote. The informant refused to give the reply, upon which it is alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the informant, and when Baban Thakur came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused persons by lathi on his head, causing serious injury. The informant refused to give the reply, upon which it is alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the informant, and when Baban Thakur came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused persons by lathi on his head, causing serious injury. On the basis of the written information given by the informant, the police case was instituted and ultimately the accused respondents were put to trial in the Court below. 7. The impugned Judgment also shows that eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had examined the injuries of the informant and the said Baban Thakur. The material witnesses have supported the prosecution case of assault against the accused persons, and the Doctor, who had examined the injuries of both the injureds, was examined as P.W.-7, who had proved their injury reports. On the person of Baban Thakur, the Doctor had found one lacerated wound measuring 3½” x ½” x muscle deep on the right side of frontal head, and he had opined that the said injury was grievous in nature. The other two injuries on him were found to be simple in nature. On the informant Rajendra Thakur also, the injuries were found to be only simple in nature. 8. In the impugned Judgment it is discussed that there was delay in lodging the police case, in as much as the occurrence had taken place on 13.12.2010 at about 2.00 P.M., whereas the written information to the police was given on the next day. The Court below has also discussed the fact that the nature of the head injury upon Baban Thakur, as opined by the Doctor to be grievous, did not appear to be correct, in view of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was nothing in the evidence of the Doctor to show that his finding was based on any x-ray report, or that the injury was dangerous to life. The Court below has given the specific finding that only because the injury was on the head, it cannot be said to be grievous in nature, or dangerous to life. Accordingly, the Trial Court below acquitted the accused persons of the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and has convicted them only for the offence under Section 323 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Accordingly, the Trial Court below acquitted the accused persons of the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and has convicted them only for the offence under Section 323 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned counsel for the informant appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, there is specific allegation against the accused respondents to have assaulted the injured Baban Thakur on his head by lathi, causing serious injury, and the said injury was also found to be grievous in nature by the Doctor P.W.-7, and accordingly, the offences were clearly made out under Sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well. 10. Learned counsel for the State as also learned senior counsel for the accused respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused respondents for the charges under Sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, taking into consideration Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the injury was not grievous in nature, rather it was only simple in nature having the dimension of 3 ½” x ½” x muscle deep. The Court below has rightly differed from the opinion of the Doctor, as the opinion of the Doctor was not supported with any x-ray report and also not supported by any finding that it was dangerous to life. Learned counsels accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment acquitting the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the Court below has meticulously discussed the materials on record, taking into consideration Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, and finding that the injury upon the head of Baban Thakur was wrongly opined to be grievous in nature by the Doctor. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court below are cogent reasons and in accordance with law. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court below are cogent reasons and in accordance with law. We do not find any such patent or inherent illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, acquitting the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, worth interference by this Court. 12. Since, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, there is no question of granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment, acquitting the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I.A. No.1988 of 2018 and I.A. No. 8547 of 2017, filed in these appeals, seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, stand dismissed. 13. In view of the findings given above, the consideration of the I.A. No.3962 of 2018 for condonation of delay in filing the Acquittal Appeal No.16 of 2018, shall now only be academic in nature, without bearing any fruitful result, and as such, the same also stands dismissed. 14. Consequently, both these acquittal appeals are also dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Appeals dismissed.