Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 59 (JHR)

Praveen Kumar v. Nand Kishore Prajapati

2018-01-08

H.C.MISHRA, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing this appeal. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The aforesaid interlocutory application, thus, stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 471 of 2016 with I.A. No. 8543 of 2017. Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29th of February, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra, in S.T. No. 180 of 2012, whereby the private-respondents Nos. 1 to 3, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 307, 325, 341, 323, 385, 379, 427 and 504 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced only for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 341 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the fact that these respondents have not been convicted for the offences under Sections 379, 385, 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It may be stated that the private respondents have filed Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 343 of 2016, against their conviction and sentence, which was tagged with this appeal by order dated 22.10.2016. 4. I.A. No. 8543 of 2017 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal from the main charges. 5. According to the prosecution case, as reveled from the impugned Judgment, the informant appellant was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chatra, and he has residential property at Marwari Mohalla, near Girls High School, Chatra, where the accused private respondents were the tenants in a shop, and despite several requests, they were not vacating the said shop, rather they were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of such vacation. It is alleged that on 23.1.2012, at about 4.00 P.M., while the informant appellant was going to attend family planning operation at Chatra Sadar Hospital, he again reminded the accused persons to vacate the said shop, whereupon, it is alleged that accused persons assaulted him with sticks and rods, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury on his nose. It is alleged that on 23.1.2012, at about 4.00 P.M., while the informant appellant was going to attend family planning operation at Chatra Sadar Hospital, he again reminded the accused persons to vacate the said shop, whereupon, it is alleged that accused persons assaulted him with sticks and rods, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury on his nose. Thereafter, the accused Dhananjay Prajapati scaled on his chest and pressed his neck and when his father came to his rescue, he was also assaulted and injured by the accused persons. It is also alleged that the accused Dhananjay Prajapati took away gold chain worth Rs. 45,000/- of the informant appellant. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant appellant, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up, and ultimately accused persons were put to trial. 6. The impugned Judgment also shows that P.W.-5 Dr. K. K. Singh, who had examined the informant appellant, though had found several injuries on the person of the informant, but out of those injuries, only one injury on nose was found to be grievous in nature. Though abrasion was also found on the neck of the informant appellant, but all these injuries were simple in nature. Even on the father of the informant appellant, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature, except one injury on the left ring finger, which was found to be grievous in nature. 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has convicted the private respondents only for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that there was dispute between the parties for eviction of the shop. It is an admitted fact that the accused respondents have since been evicted from the premises of the informant appellant. 8. In view of the medical evidence, prima facie, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment, not finding the respondents guilty for the offence under Sections 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the dispute between the parties for eviction of the shop, we also find that the Court below has rightly not found the respondents guilty for the offences under Sections 379 and 385 / 34 as well. 9. Taking into consideration the dispute between the parties for eviction of the shop, we also find that the Court below has rightly not found the respondents guilty for the offences under Sections 379 and 385 / 34 as well. 9. Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment, passed by the learned Trial Court below, there is no question of granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, the interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 8543 of 2017, seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed. 10. Consequently, this appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal of the accused respondents Nos. 1 to 3, from the main charges also stands dismissed. 11. Let the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 343 of 2016, which is tagged with this appeal be listed before the appropriate Bench.