Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2045 (JHR)

Haripada Mondal v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-17

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. D.C.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by Sri Rai Bhawani Nandan Sahai, Additional Sessions Judge-I,-cum-Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Sahibganj in Special Case No.03/2002 and 49/2003 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months, one month and six months for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the IPC respectively. All the sentences are directed to be run concurrently. 3. Barhait P.S. Case No.61/2010 dated 08.11.2001 has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 3(X) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Mohan Rajwar, F.I.R. has been registered. 4. The story as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that when the informant was fencing his land on 08.11.2001 at about 10 A.M., the appellants came there armed with lathi and assaulted the informant. Dilip Mandal has thrown the informant on the land and other appellants assaulted him with lathi which resulted injuries on his pokhra (ribs), shoulder, legs, back and also his left hand got fractured. On raising alarm, the villagers, namely, Babu Soren, Silo Marandi, Tuyeela Marandi, Sahdeo Mandal, Popen Mandal and some other villagers reached there for rescue of the informant. While Haripado Mandal, leaving the place of occurrence has taken away the sawal of the informant worth Rs.50/-. 5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 34 of the IPC and under Section 3(X) of the S.C./S.T. (POA Act). Thereafter, cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of sessions and charge has been framed under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 34 of the IPC and under Section 3(X) of the S.C./S.T. (POA Act) with additional charges upon Haripado Mandal for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether four witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W. -1, Mohan Rajwar is the informant himself, has supported the incident as disclosed in the F.I.R. 8. P.W.-2, Shiv Lal Marandi and P.W.-4, Baburam Soren are the independent witnesses and they have supported the incident. 9. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether four witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W. -1, Mohan Rajwar is the informant himself, has supported the incident as disclosed in the F.I.R. 8. P.W.-2, Shiv Lal Marandi and P.W.-4, Baburam Soren are the independent witnesses and they have supported the incident. 9. P.W.-5, Putul Devi is wife of the informant and has deposed supporting the occurrence. 10. P.W.-3, Bishwanath Sharma, A.S.I., who is the Investigating Officer, has supported the prosecution case. 11. Argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that injury has not been proved by the Medical Officer. Further the persons named in the F.I.R., who have reached at the place occurrence on raising hulla, have not been examined. There is exaggeration and creates doubt regarding the incident and as such, the benefits of doubt should be extended to the appellants. 12. Per contra, learned APP has supported the judgment of conviction. It has been argued that even defence witness has admitted that the informant was fencing his land, the Trial Court has rightly convicted these appellants. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. From perusal of the deposition, it transpires that there are four eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W.-1 is the informant himself, who is injured witness. P.Ws.-2 and 3 are the independent witness. P.W.-5 has also supported the incident although she is not a witness to the assault. 15. It appears that there is exaggeration as the charge under Section 3(X) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and Section 379 of the IPC has not been found to be true by the court below. From the testimonies of witnesses, it appears that they are neighbours and there is land dispute between the parties. The fracture injury has not been proved and the court below has only convicted the accused persons under Section 323 of the IPC. 16. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the prosecution has able to prove the charge of Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the IPC against the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction under the aforesaid sections is upheld. 16. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the prosecution has able to prove the charge of Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the IPC against the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction under the aforesaid sections is upheld. So far as sentencing is concerned, the incident is of the year 2001, the trial has been concluded in the year 2006, the appeal is being heard in the year 2019 and the appellants had remained in custody since 11.11.2001 to 06.12.2001 i.e. 25 days, the sentencing of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone i.e 25 days. 17. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by Sri Rai Bhawani Nandan Sahai, Additional Sessions Judge-I,-cum-Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Sahibganj in Special Case No.03/2002 and 49/2003 is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with above modification. 18. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.