Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 133 (JHR)

Sitaram Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2022-02-03

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : Navneet Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.20003 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, First Track, Court No. 1, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 757 of 1994 whereby the learned trial court after finding the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 341/323 of IPC and sentenced to them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and one month R.I. for the offence punishable u/s 341 IPC. It has further been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Briefly stating the prosecution story as unfolded in the fardbeyan of Prasant Tiwary, whose statement was recorded by the A.S.I. Sri R.R. Prasad of Kamalpur Police Station on dated 05.01.1994 at 15:00 hours at village Nutandih in the District of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is as under: On 05.01.1994 informant had gone to Bara Bazar from his village Kasmar on a bicycle along with his co-villager Manik Tiwary to purchase the household goods while they were returning from the Market to their village they found the aforesaid accused persons namely Sitaram Manjhi, Gurupado Manjhi and Tapan Manjhi all of Nutandih village armed with lathi were standing on the road towards its southern direction. As soon as the informant and his co-villager reached near them, the accused Sitraram Manjhi caught hold Manik Tiwary after dropping his lathi on the ground and the accused Gurupado Manjhi started beating him with kicks. At the order of the accused Sita Ram Manjhi the accused Tapan Manjhi inflicted lathi blow on the head of Manik Tiwary as a result of which he sustained wound on his head and there started bleeding. The informant tried to prevent the accused persons from assaulting Manik Tiwary then the accused persons turned towards him (informant) with a view to assault him then the informant leaving the bicycle there ran to the flour mill situated adjacent to the P.O. and took shelter there. Then he raised alarm, on the alarm the villager of Nutandih namely Rohan Manjhi, Rutu Gorai and Chittu Tiwary of village: Kasmar rushed towards the place of occurrence in the meantime the accused persons managed to escape. Then he raised alarm, on the alarm the villager of Nutandih namely Rohan Manjhi, Rutu Gorai and Chittu Tiwary of village: Kasmar rushed towards the place of occurrence in the meantime the accused persons managed to escape. According to the informant the reason behind such incident was that during the last Aghan month Manik Tiwary had some confrontation with the aforesaid accused persons as they had committed theft of paddy crop from his (Manik Tiwary) field by harvesting it in a clandestine manner. The informant lastly stated in his fardbeyan that the accused persons had assaulted Manik Tiwary with lathi and got him seriously injured with an intention to kill him. He further stated that due to unconsciousness of the injured Manik Tiwary he was not in a fit condition to give his statement to the police with regard to the incident. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, F.I.R. was registered and investigation was taken up and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case, on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial court after concluding the trial acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and found them guilty for the offence punishable u/s 341/323 of IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. 4. Heard Mrs. Vani Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the - Judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal, unwarranted and not supported by the materials on record. - Learned Trial court relied upon the evidence of hearsay witnesses without any basis. - Learned trial court ought to have considered that conviction cannot be rest upon the basis of solitary eye witness whose statement has not been corroborated with other witnesses. - Learned Trial Court committed grave error in law by accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 whose statement has not been corroborated by the depositions of the hearsay witness P.W. 1 which is very weak piece of evidence. - No independent witness was present at the place of occurrence according to the victim injured P.W. 2 in his cross examination. - Learned Trial Court committed grave error in law by accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 whose statement has not been corroborated by the depositions of the hearsay witness P.W. 1 which is very weak piece of evidence. - No independent witness was present at the place of occurrence according to the victim injured P.W. 2 in his cross examination. - The learned lower court ought to have considered vital aspect of the case that P.W. 2 was unconscious and he was unable to say anything to the persons arrived at the place of occurrence. - There is no cogent and reliable witness in order to implicate the appellants in this case and as such the conviction is bad in law. - The informant eye witness P.W. 5 has been declared hostile therefore conviction on that sole eye witness is not proper. - According to the medical evidence of P.W. 6 injuries are simple in nature when the learned lower court has acquitted the appellants u/s 307 IPC so the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants. - Enmity cuts both the side, so there is every chance of falsely implicating the appellants in order to prove the charges u/s 341 and 323 of IPC, therefore, the appellants should have been acquitted on the plea of benefit of doubt. - Prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the conviction is not proper. - Privilege of section 360 of code of Criminal Procedure or of the provision of section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act should have to be given to the appellants in the instance case. - The appellant no. 1 Sitaram Manjhi is very old person aged about 60 years at the time of occurrence now he is at present about 80 years and he has no involvement in this case, therefore, he may be acquitted as such. - Even the injured eye witness P.W. 2 does not give ring of truth in his evidence. - The uncorroborated solitary eye witness P.W.2 should have been carefully scrutinized and without doing so conviction is not proper and illegal as such. Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P. 6. - Even the injured eye witness P.W. 2 does not give ring of truth in his evidence. - The uncorroborated solitary eye witness P.W.2 should have been carefully scrutinized and without doing so conviction is not proper and illegal as such. Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P. 6. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there is no illegality to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It has been pointed out that the victim is the eye witness namely P.W. 2 Manik Tiwary who categorically and clearly stated about the assault inflicted by the appellants upon him in a very specific and individualistic manner and his evidence is highly reliable and trustworthy and it is well settled principal of law that if the deposition of the victim eye witness is convincing and reliable, there is no need for corroboration by any other witness and therefore even if the other witnesses who have been declared hostile, the case of the prosecution is not shaken in the light of the cogent evidence given by the victim eye witness P.W.2 Manik Tiwary. Further it is pointed out that the P.W. 1 and the informant P.W. 5 have also supported the case of the prosecution and the injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted upon the victim have been duly corroborated by the Dr. Naveen Kr. Sinha who has been examined as P.W. 6 and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the proper and legal evidence and there is no point to interfere and accordingly this appeal is fit to be dismissed for want of merit. Appraisal & Findings 7. Having heard the parties, perused the materials available on record. 8. The appellants were charged to have assaulted upon the one co-villager Manik Tiwari by lathi, kicks and fists. Appraisal & Findings 7. Having heard the parties, perused the materials available on record. 8. The appellants were charged to have assaulted upon the one co-villager Manik Tiwari by lathi, kicks and fists. The reason disclosed in the FIR was that there had been confrontation between both the parties on the allegation of committing theft of paddy crops from the agricultural field of Manik Tiwary by the accused-appellants and thus, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that there was enmity between both the parties and therefore this Court proceeds to examine the inimical evidence carefully and cautiously as there was a dispute between the informant people and the accused for committing the theft of paddy crops. 9. Altogether six witnesses have been examined in which P.W. 1. Chito Ranjan Tiwary is a hearsay witness and he came to the place of occurrence after hearing the hulla form some of the witnesses and he had seen the Manik Tiwary had sustained injures and he was lying in unconscious state and stated that he came to know that the appellants /accused persons Guru Pado Manjhi, Tapan Manjhi and Sitaram Manjhi had assaulted and ran away. Manik Tiwary has been examined as P.W. 2. He has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the while he was retuning along with P.W. 5, the informant, he was intercepted by the appellants and the appellants had assaulted him with kicks from behind and Guru Pado Manjhi had assaulted him with Kicks and Sita Ram Manjhi had given him order to assault and Tapan Majhji had assaulted him with lathi by which he fell down on the ground and became unconscious. In the cross examination he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the appellants namely Guru Pado Manjhi, Tapan Manjhi and Sitaram Manjhi had been standing with the bamboo sticks (Lathi) and in para 5 he categorically stated that he received injuries of fists and kicks thus he supported the case of the prosecution that all the appellants collectively assaulted him and the same had been rightly appreciated by the learned court below. 10. Further P.W. 3-Khatu Gorai & P.W. 4-Rohan Manjhi have been declared hostile. 10. Further P.W. 3-Khatu Gorai & P.W. 4-Rohan Manjhi have been declared hostile. P.W. 5-Prasant Tiwary, the informant of the case, has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that two appellants namely Sitaram Manjhi and Guru Pado Manjhi had arrived at the place of the occurrence when the occurrence had already taken place and, therefore, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and as he resiled from his earlier statement that all the co-accused persons Guru Pado Manjhi, Tapan Manjhi and Sitaram Manjhi had assaulted the injured Manik Tiwary. But in the cross examination this witness has stated that Tapan Manjhi had assaulted the informant. 11. P.W. 6 Doctor, Navin Kr. Sinha, has been examined, who is said to have medically examined the P.W.2 Manik Tiwary and he proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 1 and he found three injuries on his person. He has found the injury no. 1 to be lacerated wound scalp right side of size 3”x1/2”x1/4”. He has found the injury no. 2 to be bruise on the left infra scapular region of size 2”x1/4” and the injury no. 3rd to be complaint of body ache. Thus P.W. 6 supported the case of the prosecution that the injuries were inflicted upon the injured Manik Tiwary. 12. From the aforesaid evidences including the testimonies of the witness and the injury report (Ext.1) it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses vis-a-vis the Ext-1 (injury report) and came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty for the offences punishable u/s 323 & 341 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted therein. 13. This Court does not find any discrepancy in the findings of the learned court below where the accused-appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 323 & 341 of IPC. The victim P.W. 2 - Manik Tiwary and to some extent P.W. 5-Prasant Tiwary, the informant of this Case consistently and uniformly supported the case being eye witness and P.W. 2 being the injured witness. So far as the P.W. 1 is concerned, although he was a hearsay witness but he has supported the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses P.Ws. 3 & 4 have been declared hostile. 14. The P.W. 6 - the doctor supported the injuries inflicted upon the victim P.W. 2 Manik Tiwary. So far as the P.W. 1 is concerned, although he was a hearsay witness but he has supported the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses P.Ws. 3 & 4 have been declared hostile. 14. The P.W. 6 - the doctor supported the injuries inflicted upon the victim P.W. 2 Manik Tiwary. There is no cogent material on the record to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction. Hence this Court upholds the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 of the IPC. So far as the order of sentence is concerned it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that this is the case of the year 1994 more than 25 years old and further it has been contended that the appellant no. 1 is very old as he is aged about 80 years and other two appellants Guru Pado Manjhi and Tapan Manjhi are in their middle age 50-45 years old, therefore, it is not conducive to send them again in jail in this case. Further, there is nothing on record to show that these appellants have any criminal history and, therefore, in this view of the matter this Court finds it is proper and just to award sentence of imprisonment to the appellants for a term of the period already undergone by them. Since all the appellants namely Sitaram Manjhi, Guru Pado Manjhi and Tapan Manjhi are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. 15. As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the order of sentence. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the LCR.