Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2159 (JHR)

Puran Thakur v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-09-28

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2018
JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. N.P. Choudhary and Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.06.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2001, whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the convicts have further been awarded simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is based upon written report submitted by informant, Md. Mobin Ansari, P.W.-3, before the Officer-in-charge, Chitra police station (Sarath) on 10.06.2000, alleging therein that today (10.06.2000) at around 08:00 A.M., while the informant was ploughing his field, Puran Thakur and his son Manoj Thakur, resident of villageSaranda, came there and without asking anything caught hold the informant and Manoj Thakur having knife in his hand, assaulted the informant on left side of the head causing bleeding injury and thereafter assaulted on the right side of the neck causing injury. The informant has further stated that in the meantime, Puran Thakur also started assaulting the informant by stone causing injury because of which informant fell down on the ground. On brawl the villagers namely, Rathat Ansari and Manjoor Ansari came there for rescue of the informant. The informant has further stated that, the accused persons also took away the bullocks of the informant. It is further alleged that a litigation is pending with respect to land dispute with the accused persons. 4. On the basis of written report, police instituted Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.64 of 2000, dated 10.06.2000, under Sections 341/323/324/307/ 379/337 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.64 of 2000, dated 30.09.2000 under Sections 341/323/337/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. 6. 4. On the basis of written report, police instituted Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.64 of 2000, dated 10.06.2000, under Sections 341/323/324/307/ 379/337 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.64 of 2000, dated 30.09.2000 under Sections 341/323/337/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 21.10.2000 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 13.02.2001. 7. The charge has been framed against both the appellants under Sections 341/34, 307/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 22.05.2001, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, has examined altogether five witnesses and also exhibited documents up to exhibit 5. Rahat Ansari, has been examined as P.W.-1, Manjoor Ansari, has been examined as P.W.-2, Md. Mobin Ansari, informant and victim, has been examined as P.W.-3, Dr. Laxmi Narayan Gagrai, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.-4 and Ram Binod Singh, officer-in-charge, has been examined as P.W.-5. Signature of the informant, Md. Mobin Ansari on the written report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, injury report of Mobin Ansari, has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, endorsement on the written report by the S.I., Sri R.B. Singh, has been proved and marked as exhibit3, formal first information report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-4 and police requisition for medical examination, has been proved and marked as exhibit-5. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 06.10.2004 to which they have pleaded false implication in this case and claimed to adduce evidence but no defence witness has been examined nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused/appellants. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the material available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 341/34 of the Indian penal Code. But by the same impugned judgment learned trial court has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. But by the same impugned judgment learned trial court has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is being heard by this Hon''ble Court. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. N.P. Choudhary. 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 the allegation made in the first information report is that Manoj Thakur has assaulted the informant by means of knife on his head and on the right side of the neck, but doctor, who has been examined in this case as P.W.-4 and has proved the injury report as exhibit-2 has categorically stated that both the injuries were simple in nature, might have been caused by hard and blunt substance such as stone. During cross-examination, doctor has admitted that the lacerated wound and abrasion may be caused by fall on rough and hard surface. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the informant who has been examined as P.W.-3 has stated that he was assaulted by Manoj Thakur by means of knife on the left side of the head and subsequently on the right side of the neck but P.W.1, Rahat Ansari has stated during examination-in-chief at paragraph 3 that Manoj has assaulted Mobin by means of knife on the left side of the neck and subsequently on right side of the neck. This witness has claimed himself to be eye witness to the occurrence but his evidence is factually contradictory from the evidence adduced by the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that, P.W.-2, Manjoor Ansari, has stated that Mobin Ansari was unconscious because of the injury caused upon the head and neck. On being asked from Rahat Ansari (P.W.-1), this witness knew that Puran Thakur and Manoj Thakur have assaulted Mobin (informant), meaning thereby P.W.-2 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, rather he has adduced the evidence on the basis of disclosure made by P.W.-1, Rahat Ansari. P.W.-4, Dr. On being asked from Rahat Ansari (P.W.-1), this witness knew that Puran Thakur and Manoj Thakur have assaulted Mobin (informant), meaning thereby P.W.-2 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, rather he has adduced the evidence on the basis of disclosure made by P.W.-1, Rahat Ansari. P.W.-4, Dr. Laxmi Narayan Gagrai, is the Medical Officer, who has proved the injury to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury report has been marked as exhibit-2. P.W.-5, Ram Binod Singh, the investigating officer of the case, has proved the endorsement made on the written application, which has been marked as exhibit-3 and the formal first information report in the handwriting and signature of the officer-in-charge, has been proved and marked as exhibit-4 and the police requisition for the medical examination of the victim, has been proved and marked as exhibit-5. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 that witness Rahat Ansari, P.W.-1 has never said before him that Manoj has assaulted Mobin on the left side of the neck by means of knife and subsequently on the right side of the neck. Manjoor Ansari, P.W.-2, has also not stated before him, that he was plauging his field at the time of occurrence and Mobin Ansari, P.W.-3, informant and victim of the case has also not disclosed before him, that after sustaining injury he became unconscious and was brought to the house by Rahat Ansari, P.W-1. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted, that both the eye witnesses are not consistent to their evidence and as per their evidence they do not seem to be an eye witnesses to the occurrence. Informant has alleged that he has been assaulted by means of sharp cut weapon (knife) but the doctor has found the injury to be lacerated wound caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted, that in aforesaid background and in view of judgment as Patna in the case of Kailash Prasad Gupta & others versus The State of Bihar , (2005) 1 EastCriC 62. The appellants deserve to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of them. 12. Heard, Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The appellants deserve to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of them. 12. Heard, Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based upon the material available on record and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 324/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that though the injuries are found by the doctor, caused by hard and blunt substance but the place of injury on the person of the victim was consistent as submitted by doctor i.e. left side of occipital reason of scalp and right side of the neck. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted, that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 324/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly acquitted the appellants under Sections 379/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. N.P. Choudhary and Mr. S.K. Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and perused the records i.e. first informant report, framing of charge, the evidence of five prosecution witnesses, prosecution exhibits, the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the prosecution evidence, it appears that P.W.-1, Rahat Ansari and P.W.-2 Manjoor Ansari have claimed themselves to be eye witnesses to the occurrence but there evidence suggest that they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, rather they have reached the place of occurrence after the actual assault and as such, there is vital contradiction with regard to the manner of occurrence committed by the appellant, Manoj Thakur. This court has also perused the evidence of informant. The informant, Mobin Ansari has alleged that he has sustained injury on the left side of the head and right side of the neck because of assault by means of knife but as per the injury report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, on the basis of finding of Dr. Laxmi Narayan Gagrai, P.W.-4, both the injuries were lacerated abrasion caused by hard and blunt substance. 14. Laxmi Narayan Gagrai, P.W.-4, both the injuries were lacerated abrasion caused by hard and blunt substance. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the statement made by the investigating officer, Ram Binod Singh, (P.W.5) in paragraph 9, 10 and 11, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants, as such appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt, in view of the judgment placed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.06.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2001, is hereby set aside. 16. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. 17. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.