Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1979 (JHR)

Ganesh Prasad Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-06

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dumka (FTC) in Sessions Case No. 242 of 2001 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code by which appellant No.01 Ganesh Prasad Yadav has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants namely Prem Kumar Yadav, Birendra Kumar Yadav and Ashok Yadav have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story is that on 22.07.2000 at about 7.00 AM, when one of the appellant namely Ganesh Prasad Yadav was ploughing the disputed field, the victim Baleshwar Yadav along with other family members went there and raised objection, upon which this appellant has assaulted Baleshwar Yadav and his family members with spear causing serious injuries to them. Other accused persons namely Prem Kumar Yadav and Birendra Kumar Yadav have assaulted Baleshwar Yadav and his family members by Lathi. 4. On the basis of statement of the informant, Jarmundi P. S. Case No. 100 of 2000 was registered under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 341/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all these accused persons and to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial has been conducted and appellant namely Ganesh Prasad Yadav has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants namely Prem Kumar Yadav, Birendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code 5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, to which they pleaded not guilty. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. To substantiate the charges, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, to which they pleaded not guilty. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. To substantiate the charges, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P. W. 1- Dukhu Devi is mother of the informant and an injured eye witness; P. W. 2- Rambha Devi is also an eye witness; P. W. 3- Baleshwar Yadav is the informant and injured eye witness; P. W. 4- Harendra Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case; P. W. 5- Panchanand Yadav and P. W. 6- Dhaneshwar Yadav are also the eye witnesses. The Doctor has not been examined in the present case. Injury report exhibited as Ext. -4, suggests the sharp cutting injury and bruise, which corroborates the allegation of use of sharp cutting weapon. Defence has been taken of self defence, as when the appellant was ploughing field, Baleshwar Yadav had come and assaulted the family members of the appellant and in the act of self defence, some injuries have been sustained by Baleshwar Yadav. To substantiate their case, they have brought certain documents i.e. Ext.- A, which is formal FIR of Jarmundi P. S. Case No. 101 of 2000; Ext.- B, written report of Ganesh Yadav; Ext.-C is the charge sheet submitted in Jarmundi P. S. Case No. 101 of 2000; Ext.-D series are injury reports of appellant and their family members. 8. Thus, from the materials on record, it is evident that there was a land dispute and due to which scuffle has taken place between the parties. Both the parties have sustained injuries. From perusal of the evidence and depositions of witnesses, it is evident that all the witnesses have admitted the fact that the appellant no. 1 namely Ganesh Prasad Yadav and other family members were ploughing the disputed field and Baleshwar Yadav and other family members have raised objection. Thus, from the sequence of events, it appears that Baleshwar Yadav and other family members were aggressors and this fact has been narrated by the Investigating Officer by submitting charg-sheet, which has been marked as Ext.-C. The three family members of the appellant have sustained injuries. Thus, from the sequence of events, it appears that Baleshwar Yadav and other family members were aggressors and this fact has been narrated by the Investigating Officer by submitting charg-sheet, which has been marked as Ext.-C. The three family members of the appellant have sustained injuries. It transpires that Baleshwar Yadav was aggressor and the appellants have acted in their self defence as they have not approached the victim, rather the appellants have approached the victim in the present case. 9. Considering the entire materials on record, this Court finds that conviction of the appellants under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eyes of law as they have acted in self defence. 10. Accordingly judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dumka (FTC) in Sessions Case No. 242 of 2001 is, hereby, set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 11. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.