Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2012 (JHR)

Khagpati Rana v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-13

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard the parties. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.03.2006 passed by Sri B.C. Jha, Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.387 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Sadar P.S. Case No.190 of 2001 (G.R. No.895 of 2001) has been registered on the written report of the informant-Padmini Devi (P.W.7) on 13.04.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. in Muffasil Police Station, which was subsequently forwarded to Sadar Police Station at 20.00 hours and accordingly, the case has been registered under Sections 341,324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the FIR, the informant, namely, Padmini Devi (P.W.7) wife of the appellant has been assaulted by heated iron rod at about 4.00 p.m. 4. On the basis of the said report, FIR has been registered. Investigation has been done and the charge sheet has been submitted by the police under Sections 307,324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance was taken, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions and charge has been framed under Sections 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the trial, 8 (eight) witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1-Shyam Lal Ram, P.W.2-Shibu Mahto, P.W.3-Laxman Rana, P.W.4-Ganesh Rana and P.W.5-Suraj Kumar Rana have been declared hostile. P.W.6-Chandradeo Rana, brother-in-law of the informant has supported the prosecution case. P.W.7-Padmini Devi, the informant and wife of the appellant, has also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.8-Dr. Sidh Nath, has examined the injury of the informant on 13.04.2001 at 1.30 p.m. and has found burn injuries on her person. As per opinion of the doctor, the injuries are simple in nature and caused within six hours of the examination. 6. From perusal of the ocular evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and matching with the medical injury and timing disclosed by the informant, it does not match with the incident. As per opinion of the doctor, the injuries are simple in nature and caused within six hours of the examination. 6. From perusal of the ocular evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and matching with the medical injury and timing disclosed by the informant, it does not match with the incident. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the incident must be of same day i.e. 13.04.2001 and not on 12.04.2001 as alleged by the informant. 7. The defence has taken plea that the appellant has three wives as there is quarrel between them and using his position, P.W.6 has cooked up story, which has been supported by the informant. The injury is self-inflicted injury to implicate the appellant. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 8. In view of the above discussion and considering the materials available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant. 9. Resultantly, present appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.03.2006 passed by Sri B.C. Jha, Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.387 of 2001 is, hereby, set aside. 10. Since the appellant, namely, Khagpati Rana is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond.