Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 50 (JHR)

Ajit Raut v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-08

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Anant Bijay Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant had faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 60/2000, before the Court of Chamru Tanti, 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka, who by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.2.2003 held him guilty u/s. 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. It appears that this appeal was admitted for hearing on 9.4.2003 and the LCR was called for and the provisional bail of the appellant was confirmed. 3. It further appears that the matter was listed on 19.8.2016 after period of 13 years, before a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court and the office was directed to communicate to the concerned Police Station to find out whether the appellant is dead or alive and if he is alive, his whereabouts and police was directed to inform the appellant that this appeal is pending in this Court. The required report being Lt. No. 554/17 dated 28.7.2017 has been received, which reveals that the appellant is alive residing in his village. Thereafter, matter was listed on 20.11.2017, on that date Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey was appointed as Amicus Curaie from the High Court Legal Service Committee Panel for assisting this Court. 4. The case of the prosecution based upon the fardbeyan of the informant PW-5, namely, Guru Raut, which was recorded by S.I. Sudarshan Kunwar of Jama P.S. on the same day at 6.00 P.M. at Jama Primary Health Center, alleging therein is that a dinner party on the eve of marriage ceremony of the S/o Dukhan Kunwar was going on in the house of Dukhan Kunwar under the guidance of informant, Guru Raut. At about 3.30 p.m. accused Ajit Raut came to take meal in the party and the informant requested him to wait for 10 minutes as vegetable was out of stock. As a result, a hot talk took place between Manti Kunwar and the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant went to the house and brought the axe and assaulted the informant, by means of Axe and as a result, informant sustained injury on his right hand and left region of chest. In the meanwhile Ram Prasad Raut, PW-2 came to rescue him, but he was also assaulted and further his son Ledha Raut, nephew Jerman Raut and Japan Raut came there and intervened. 5. In the meanwhile Ram Prasad Raut, PW-2 came to rescue him, but he was also assaulted and further his son Ledha Raut, nephew Jerman Raut and Japan Raut came there and intervened. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Jama P.S. Case No. 60/2002, dated 16.4.1998, under Sections 447, 324, 326, 307 of the IPC was lodged against the appellant. 6. The police after investigation submitted final form under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC against the appellant and the court of learned CJM, Dumka took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case before the ACJM, Dumka for commitment, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka for trial and disposal. 7. During the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined, out of which PW-5 informant and PW-2 Ram Prasad Raut are injured witnesses. PW-10 is the I.O. of the case, Ext.1 is the fardbeyan of informant, Ext-2 is the formal F.I.R. of this case and Exts-3 and 3/1 are the injury slips of injured Guru Raut and Ram Prasad Raut respectively. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in course of arguments has submitted that admittedly, PW-2 and PW-5 (informant) have supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the doctor has not been examined and there is no injury report regarding nature of injury received by PW-2 and PW-5 (informant) and only PW-10, the I.O. of this case, has given endorsement on the injury slip. But these facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge and the only allegation that the appellant had assaulted PW-2 and PW-5 by means of axe has been considered. It is further submitted that the axe, which was used for assault has not been seized and the bloodstains were also not collected and there is also nothing on record to suggests that the blood is human blood. It is further submitted that the parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial court failed to appreciate that the present case is a counter blast to the case lodged by the appellant against the informant and other prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial court failed to appreciate that the present case is a counter blast to the case lodged by the appellant against the informant and other prosecution witnesses. 9. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that PW-5 (informant) and PW-2 are injured witnesses, who have supported the proposition case. It is further submitted that the other witnesses PW-3 Shanti Devi, PW-6 Jerman Raut, PW-7 Ledha Raut, PW-8 Jaggo Devi and PW-9 Sagia Devi have also supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has proved its case. So, there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. 10. In view of the facts that the doctor has not been examined, nor the medical examination report as well as the weapon (axe) which was used for assault have been brought on record by the prosecution and bloodstains have also not been collected, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.2.2003, passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 60/2000 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is on bail, is hereby discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 13. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below as well as Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, Ranchi through FAX forthwith for quantifying the fees of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, who has appeared in this case on behalf of the appellant.