Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2111 (JHR)

Guru Pada Mondal v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-24

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. A. K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Pankaj Verma and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.01.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 181 of 1989/52 of 2003, whereby, all the appellants/accused persons have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code except appellant no. 1, Gurupad Mandal, who has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Trial court has awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant Guru Pada Mondal and one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellants/accused persons namely Balram Mondal, Sukhdeo Mondal and Nimai Mondal. They are also further directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default of payment of fine these three appellants/accused persons have to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months each. The learned trial Court has also directed, extending benefit under Section 360 Cr. P.C., the appellants namely Guru Pada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal, considering their age, to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/-with two sureties and to appear and receive sentence when called upon and further directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of Badal Dasi Ghosh (P.W.4) recorded by Sub-Inspector of police Rameshwar Singh of Bindapathar, Police Station on 09.04.1998 at 10.00 A.M. At village-Mathura Mohul Tala Khet, wherein, the informant has stated, that the informant along with her husband Bhudar Ghosh went to their field for collecting Mahuwa. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of Badal Dasi Ghosh (P.W.4) recorded by Sub-Inspector of police Rameshwar Singh of Bindapathar, Police Station on 09.04.1998 at 10.00 A.M. At village-Mathura Mohul Tala Khet, wherein, the informant has stated, that the informant along with her husband Bhudar Ghosh went to their field for collecting Mahuwa. Informant has further stated that in the morning at 6.30 A.M. the accused persons namely Guru Pada Mondal , Shyamapada Mondal, Bala Ram @ Balai Mondal, Sukhdeb Mondal and Nimai Mondal came there with lathi, sword and farsa in their hands and behested the informant to withdraw the case, filed in Jamtara Court against the accused persons. Husband of the informant has denied to withdraw the case as they have constructed house upon his land, upon which Guru Pada Mondal having lathi in his hand assaulted the informant and her husband. Thereafter, Husband of the informant has been assaulted by Shyamapada Mondal with sword on head, Sukhdeb Mondal with farsa below right knee, Bala Ram @ Balai Mondal with sword on left wrist and Nimai Mondal with sword on right elbow causing injuries. Informant has further stated that her husband after sustaining severe injuries fell down and became restless. Upon raising alarm by the informant Parimal Manjhee and her sons Parimal Ghosh and Asutosh Ghosh came to the spot running there and witnessed the occurrence. Informant has claimed that accused persons have assaulted her and her husband with intention to kill. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has instituted First Information Report bearing Nala (Bindapathar) P.S. Case No. 20 of 1998, dated 10.04.1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 41 of 1998, dated 30.09.1998, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.07.1998 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.09.1999. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against all the five accused persons, on 13.05.2002, under Sections 341, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants/accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against all the five accused persons, on 13.05.2002, under Sections 341, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants/accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Parimal Ghosh (son of the informant) has been examined as P.W.1, Asutosh Ghosh (another son of the informant) has been examined as P.W.2, Parimal Kumar Manjhee (independent witness) has been examined as P.W.3, Badal Dasi @ Ghosh has been examined as P.W.4, Dr. Shailendra Kumar Jha (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.5 and Rajesh Kumar (investigating officer of the case) has been examined as P.W.6. Injury report of Bhudar Ghosh has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, injury report of Badal Dasi Ghosh has been proved and marked as exhibit-1/2, the supplementary injury report of Badal Dasi Ghosh has been proved and marked as exhibit-1/3, entire fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, Police requisition for medical examination of Bhudar Ghosh and Badal Dasi Ghosh have been proved and marked as exhibits-3 and 3/1 respectively and certified copy of percha of A.K.J. No.6 plot no. 387 of mouza Mahul tala recorded in the name of Govind Ghosh (father-in-law of the informant) has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 17.12.2003, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and they have submitted that since Parimal Kumar Manjhee (P.W.3) who is relative of Badal Dasi Ghosh has been made accused in a rape case and as such false case has been filed against and said Parimal Kumar Manjhee is a member of political party. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants before this Hon’ble Court , assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocates. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants before this Hon’ble Court , assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that no specific averments have been made in the First Information Report, that which of the appellant has assaulted the victim. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that because of a litigation pending between the parties, the present case has been instituted. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the place of occurrence has not been proved and as such, the benefit of the doubt may be extended to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that appellants Guru Pada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal, who have also been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code have been given benefit under section 360 Cr.P.C. whereas, two appellants namely Bala Ram @ Balai Mondal and Sukhdeb Mondal are also of the same age group at that time, but they have been awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for four years under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for One year for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code along with Nimai Mondal. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that no appeal has been preferred for enhancement of sentence of Guru Pada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal by the State or by the informant and as such, the same punishment may be awarded to be other appellants instead of sending them to jail as the allegations are of similar nature. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for the informant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of convection and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of material available on record. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for the informant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of convection and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of material available on record. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has further submitted, that there is no infirmity in the evidence of PW-1 Parimal Ghosh, PW-2 Asutosh Ghosh and PW-4 Badal Dasi Ghosh and the oral testimony of these witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence which has been proved and marked exhibit as exhibits-1, 1/2 and 1/3. The Doctor has been examined as P.W.-5, who has examined the injured, the investigation officer, Rajesh Kumar has been examined as P.W.-6 and as such, there is consistent evidence against the appellants and the learned trial court has rightly convicted them. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. A. K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocates and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal learned counsel for the informant and perused the records, i.e First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, four exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. From the evidence on record, it appears that, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and separately convicted the appellant Guru Pada Mondal also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rest of the four accused persons under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as altogether seven injuries were found on the person of the Bhudar Ghosh and injury no. VII was compound fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg. The doctor has also examined the informant and found two injuries. The injury reports have been brought on record and as such, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and also Guru Pada Mondal under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The injury reports have been brought on record and as such, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and also Guru Pada Mondal under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. But so far the sentence is concerned Guru Pada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal, who have been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Guru Pada Mondal has also been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Shyamapada Mondal has also been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code have been directed by the learned trial court to execute a bound of Rs.5000/-to maintain peace and of good behaviour for a period of 2 years. Against the said sentence the state or the informant has not preferred any appeal before appropriate Court for enhancement of sentence. Learned trial Court has granted benefit to the appellants namely Guru Pada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal but other appellants namely Bala Ram @ Balai Mondal, Sukhdeb Mondal and Nimai Mondal, who have also been alleged with the same allegations and two of them also aged about 60-65 years respectively and as such, instead of sentencing them to Jail, this Court is modifying their sentence by directing them to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each instead of Rs. 500/-each as awarded by the learned trial Court and in case of default in payment of fine the appellants shall serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence. 15. The appellants who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. In case appellants fails in depositing the said amount, learned trial court will take every legal action to secure appearance of the appellants so that they shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.