Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1188 (JHR)

Kamal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-20

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by 17 appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2004 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Dutta, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T.No.24 of 1999/65 of 2003, whereby and whereunder appellant Jagan Mahato and the appellant Hublal Mahato have been held guilty U/s 148/324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I for two years each and remaining 15 appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year for the offence U/s 147/323 IPC with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. This appeal was filed on 06.04.2004 and on 30.04.2004 this appeal was admitted for hearing, LCR was called for and the provisional bail earlier granted to the appellants by the court below vide order dated 22.03.2004 was confirmed. 3. It further appears that after a period of 14 years, this appeal is listed on 08.10.2018 before a co-ordinate Bench and thereafter it was listed o 02.11.2018 and a report was called for from the Officer-in-Charge, Nawadih P.S.,Bokaro. 4. Perused the report, it appears that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, which reveals that appellant no.2, Sanichar Mahto, appellant no.3 Jagan Mahto and appellant no.10 Jailal Mahto have been died during pendency of the appeal and vide order dated 25.04.2019 office was directed to delete the names of the appellants aforesaid from the cause title of the memo of appeal. Now, this appeal will be taken up only on behalf of above named 14 appellants. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl.P.P. 6. It appears that the police after investigation has submitted final form on 24.05.2098 and the Sri D.K.Pandey, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat has framed charge against the appellants U/s 307/34,147,148,149 IPC. 7. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether 08 witnesses, namely, PW.1 Puran Mahto, P.W.2 Hellal Mahto, P.W.3 Basia Devi, P.W.4 Kumari Devi, P.W.5 Mangar Mahto, P.W.6 Dumar Chand Mahto, P.W.7 Biral Mahto and P.W.8 Shanti Sharma, who is an advocate clerk It appears that Ext. 1 is formal FIR, Ext.2 to 2/3 are the injury report of the injured and Ext.3 is the entire case diary of Nawadih P.S.no.100/1997. 8. 1 is formal FIR, Ext.2 to 2/3 are the injury report of the injured and Ext.3 is the entire case diary of Nawadih P.S.no.100/1997. 8. It further appears that the trial court after conclusion of the trial held guilty to appellant Jagan Mahto and Hublal Mahto U/s 148 ad 324 IPC and remaining 15 appellants were found guilty U/s 147 & 323 IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that neither the doctor has been examined nor the injury report was proved by the doctor, rather it was proved by the advocate clerk and the I.O has also not been examined. 10. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, considering the manner of occurrence. Further, although charges have been framed U/ss 307/34,147,148,149 IPC, but conviction has been made U/s 148/324/147/323 against the appellants. Hence, appellants be acquitted. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. In view of the augments made by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that neither the doctor nor the I.O were examined nor the injury report was proved by the competent person, rather it was proved by the advocate clerk, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2004 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Dutta, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T.No.24 of 1999/65 of 2003 is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them, they also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 14. Let the LCR be remitted to the court below. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.