Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1848 (JHR)

Laltu Shit v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-11-08

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani and Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No.271 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence U/s 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. The FIR has been lodged by Chotu Shit [P.W.4-brother of the victim namely Kavisen Shit (P.W.6)] on 17.06.1994, registered under sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code as Dumaria P.S. Case No. 09 of 1994. As story unfolded in the FIR, the victim-Kavisen Shit after taking meal, was coming from the house of Padogiri and when he reached near the house of Pratap then the appellant/accused had inflicted a blow on the back side of the head by Barchhi and due to this blow, the victim fell down. Thereafter an iron rod has been pierced in the ear of the victim by the appellant and also a leg blow has been given on the chest of the victim due to which his left collar bone got fractured. On raising hulla, some person gathered there. Then the victim has been taken to his house and further to the police station. Thereafter he was treated in a private hospital and then he was shifted to MGM Hospital where he remained admitted for about one and half month. He was referred to RIIMS, Ranchi from where he was finally discharged. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 302 and 324 of IPC, cognizance was taken and charge had been framed under above sections. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has produced altogether 7 witnesses. Injury report is Ext.-1, Ext.-2 is Signature of I.O. on FIR and Ext.-3 is the Signature of I.O. on seizure list. After considering the evidence available on record, the appellant have been convicted under section 307 of the IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The issues for consideration before this Court:- (i) Whether alleged offence under sections 307 and 324 has been committed or not? After considering the evidence available on record, the appellant have been convicted under section 307 of the IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The issues for consideration before this Court:- (i) Whether alleged offence under sections 307 and 324 has been committed or not? (ii) Whether sufficient evidence has been brought on record connecting the appellant with the crime? 5. P.W.1 namely Manumati Shit is the mother of the victim. She had supported the FIR but she is not eye witness. P.W.2 Padogiri with whom the victim has taken meal, has testified that after taking meal he was accompanying the victim and as such he was eye witness and has supported the incident. He has narrated the story exactly in the manner as narrated in the FIR. He has claimed that he was the only eye witness as nobody was present there. P.W.3 is the doctor of MGM Hospital. He has proved the injury report (Ext.-1). As per the testimony of doctor and injury report, only two injuries have been found on the body of the victim. (i) One stitched injury on the head may be caused by hard and blunt substance as per P.W.3. (ii) Fracture on the left collar bone may be caused by hard and blunt substance. 6. P.W.4 is the informant Chhotu Shit who is the cousin of the victim, has also testified the incident exactly as disclosed in the FIR. As per this witness, he is the only eye witness and no other person was present there. 7. P.W.5-Suwarni Shit is sister-in-law of the victim, has named herself as only eye witness and has supported the FIR narrating the incidents as disclosed in the FIR. 8. P.W.6-Kavisen Shit is the victim himself. He has also narrated the incident as disclosed in the FIR. He has not disclosed that P.W.2-Padogiri was accompanying him or any person was present at the spot. 9. The presence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are negated by P.W.6 as well as the testimony of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 themselves. These witnesses have claimed that they are the only eye witness other than victim. P.W.2 has claimed that he was accompanying the victim while the victim has not testified so. Likewise P.W.5 has claimed that she was present at the site of crime. These witnesses have claimed that they are the only eye witness other than victim. P.W.2 has claimed that he was accompanying the victim while the victim has not testified so. Likewise P.W.5 has claimed that she was present at the site of crime. Thus, from the testimony of the witnesses, it is evident that the victim is the only witness of crime and none else. The victim has narrated that the one blow from the behind on the head has been given by the appellant by Barchhi which is a sharp weapon. Thereafter an iron rod has been pierced in the ear of the victim. He has alleged regarding the leg blow on his chest which resulted in fracture of left collar bone. These narration of injury by the victim does not match with the medical evidence of P.W.3-doctor who has seen the injury during treatment and has not stated the age of injury. Although the medical examination has been done on next date of occurrence i.e. of 18.06.1994. As per doctor, the head injury is simple in nature and the fracture of color bone may be caused due to fall. No injury in the ear has been found. From perusal of evidence of record, it appears that there is much exaggeration of the incident. The victim has claimed that he has remained admitted for one and half month in MGM Hospital. Further he has suffered loss of sight in the left eye and hearing loss. These all narration has been made for enhancing the gravity of the offence, but not supported by evidence on record. 10. Considering the entire circumstances and evidence available on record, this Court finds that there is no sufficient material for offence under section 307 as there is no repeated blow, and nature of injury also does not point out the intention to kill the victim by this appellant. 11. In view of above discussion, the appellant is discharged from the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but he is held guilty under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has remained in custody for around 23 months. The incident is of the year 1994. The trial has been concluded in the year 2005 and now we are in the year 2019. 12. Considering the time spent on trial, the appellant is sentenced to the extent period undergone. The appellant has remained in custody for around 23 months. The incident is of the year 1994. The trial has been concluded in the year 2005 and now we are in the year 2019. 12. Considering the time spent on trial, the appellant is sentenced to the extent period undergone. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No.271 of 1995 is, hereby, modified to extent that the appellant is convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced for 23 months (period already undergone). 13. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. Since appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.