Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 800 (JHR)

Most. Nirma v. State of Jharkhand

2019-04-03

H.C.MISHRA, SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the accused respondents. 2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 10th August, 2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, in S.T. No. 16 of 2016, whereby the accused respondents, who were charged, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted after trial. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of acquittal, the informant has preferred this appeal, and I.A. No. 7979 of 2018 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal, against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that the FIR was lodged on 19.07.2015 by the informant, Most. Nirma, who is the mother of the injured Kunjo Yadav, for the occurrence that had taken place on 16.07.2015, stating that when her son who was returning on a motor cycle, he was assaulted by the accused-respondents by iron rod and axe. The accused respondents Mithilesh Sao and Ramesh Sao had also snatched Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket. It was also alleged that the injured was in serious condition hence, the informant immediately took him to Ranchi, for better treatment, which caused delay in lodging the FIR. 5. Charge-sheet was submitted in the case after investigation, and the accused respondents faced the trial, in which the injured was examined as P.W.-6. He has stated that he was assaulted on head by iron rod and katari, by the accused respondents, and he was also assaulted on other parts of the body, due to which he became unconscious. He has stated that he was admitted in Sadar Hospital, Koderma, where he gained consciousness for a short period, and thereafter he was referred to Ranchi, for better treatment. The informant, i.e., the mother of the injured, has also examined as P.W.-2, wherein she also stated that after being assaulted, her son became unconscious and was brought to Sadar Hospital, Koderma, and thereafter referred to Ranchi, for treatment. The evidence of the Doctor who had examined the injured at Sadar Hospital Koderma, P.W.-8 Dr. Rajan Kumar, shows that the injured himself came to the hospital and at that time he had not disclosed any medico-legal case, or any reason as to why he had sustained injuries. 6. The evidence of the Doctor who had examined the injured at Sadar Hospital Koderma, P.W.-8 Dr. Rajan Kumar, shows that the injured himself came to the hospital and at that time he had not disclosed any medico-legal case, or any reason as to why he had sustained injuries. 6. Accordingly, the evidence of the informant and the injured, that the injured became unconscious due to assaults, was not found to be reliable, by the Trial Court below, in view of the evidence of the Doctor, which showed that the injured himself had gone to the hospital and did not disclose any medico-legal case, nor he disclosed any reason for sustaining the injuries. The Court below has also taken into consideration the inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR, and has accordingly, acquitted the accused respondents, giving them the benefits of doubt. 7. Learned counsel for the informant appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, there is specific allegation against the accused respondents to have assaulted the injured, with intention to cause his death, which is also supported by the injury report proved by the Doctor. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which, the accused respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the offences charged. 8. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the accused respondents have opposed the prayer, submitting that the accused respondents have been rightly given the benefits of doubt, for the reasons detailed in the impugned Judgment. 9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court below has rightly taken into consideration the evidence of the Doctor, which showed that the injured was fully conscious and he himself had gone to the hospital, but had not disclosed any medico-legal case, and had also not disclosed the reasons for the injuries, which completely falsified the evidence that the son of the informant became unconscious after being assaulted. The impugned Judgment also shows that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, made the prosecution case absolutely doubtful. 10. The impugned Judgment also shows that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, made the prosecution case absolutely doubtful. 10. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the materials, brought on record, the Court below has rightly given the benefits of doubt to the accused respondents and has acquitted them of the charges. Even otherwise, there appears to be no such inherent and/or patent illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, so as to call for any interference by this Court. 11. Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, passed by the Trial Court below, no question arises for granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 7979 of 2018, filed seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed. 12. Consequently, this acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.