Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 275 (JHR)

Binod Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-09

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No.247 of 1997, arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.1457 of 1996, whereby and where under the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148/323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year S.I. under section 148 of IPC, and one year S.I. under section 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The allegations against the appellants arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of informant Sonamani Manjhian recorded by S.I. Arvind Kumar Sinha I/C Amlabad O.P. (P.S.-Chandankiyari) on 24.11.1996 at 09.00 hours at village Harai Kurwa, district-Bokaro is that- On 23.11.1996, informant along with her daughters Robari Manjhian, Dhobani Manjhian, Surubali Manjhian and son-in-law Sohrai Manhi and Ramlal Manjhi were harvesting her paddy crops in her paddy field situated at Mahal Tola Gahira. In the evening when they were collecting the paddy crops at about 6 pm, Budheshwar Manjhi, Polen Manjhi, Shiva Manjhi, Binod Soren and Somiya Manjhi came with deadly weapons and buffalo Cart to the field and started loading the harvested paddy crops on the buffalo cart claiming the field to be their own. When the informant and her family members raised objection, Binod Soren inflicted a tangi blow causing bleeding injury in the right elbow of the informant. Budheshwar Manjhi was holding a Farsha in his hand and was instigating other accused persons. Polen Manjhi assaulted Dhobani Manjhian on her legs with the help of Khuladhi. Shiva Manjhi was holding bow and arrow, Somiya Manjhian was holding a lathi. They all assaulted the members of informant party. In the course of the assault, Budheshwer Manjhi received injury and fell down on the ground. Informant and her other family members fled away from the field. 3. On the basis of the aforsaid fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996 dated 24.11.1996 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 307,149,379 of IPC was registered against the accused appellants and the case was entrusted for investigation. Informant and her other family members fled away from the field. 3. On the basis of the aforsaid fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996 dated 24.11.1996 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 307,149,379 of IPC was registered against the accused appellants and the case was entrusted for investigation. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against all the named accused persons under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. R.C.P Sah appearing on behalf of the appellants and Santosh Kuamr Sukla APP appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is contrary and bad in law as well as on fact and circumstances of the case and also contrary to the material evidences available on record. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supressed the material facts that the prosecution parties were convicted for the offence of murder of Budheshwar Manjhi. Further the injuries explained by the P.W.s are not corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside 6. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contended that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 148/323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence accordingly and hence there is no merit in the appeal and it is fit to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the materials available on records including the lower court records. Appraisal & Findings 8. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the dispute arose between both the parties with respect to the harvesting of the paddy crops from the agricultural field, which was under dispute for the rights and title over the same due to claim and counter claim between the parties. On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between both the parties and free fighting took place between them. On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between both the parties and free fighting took place between them. The appellants were armed with deadly weapons including Kulhari, tangi and lathi and the informant parties were also armed with deadly weapons and the five members of the prosecution party namely, Sohrai Manjhi, Sonaukhi Manjhian, P.W.3 Robari Manjhian, P.W.5 Dhobni Manjhian and P.W.4 Surubali Manjhian, were convicted (as evident from Ext A, the Certified copy of the judgement of conviction of prosecution parties in S.T. No. 89/1998) under Sections 302/34 IPC along with other Sections of the IPC for committing the murder of Budheshwar Manjhi, who is said to be the father of the appellant No.2 Polen Manjhi and the husband of the appellant No.3 Somiya Manjhian. In this view of the matter, it is manifest that the prosecution parties were aggressive and they had brutally and ruthlessly assaulted the accused persons, by which, the father of the appellant No.2 Budheshwar Manjhi succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him, which is evident from the FIR itself. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is found that that the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor and the I.O. of the case in order to substantiate the charges against the accused appellants and the prosecution has been able to examine only five witnesses, namely PW – 1 Jhamulal Rawani, PW – 2 Madan Rawani, PW 3 Robari Manjhian, PW – 4 Surubali Manjhian and PW – 5 Dhobani Manjhian. Further it is found that the accused appellants in their defence have brought into evidence the certified copy of the S.T. No.89 of 1998, which was marked as Ext-A in order to show that the prosecution parties including the informant Sonamukhi Manjhian, Sohrai Manjhi, Robari Manjhian, Dhobni Manjhian and Surubali Manjhian were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 and other Sections of IPC for committing murder of said Budheshwar Manjhi, who was father of the appellant No.2. It is also found that during the course of trial of said S.T. No.89 of 1998, under which, the informant parties were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/ 149 and other Sections of IPC, some injury reports of the injured persons from the informant’s side of the case were marked as Exts. A, A/1, A/2 and A/3 respectively, which are also available on record. A, A/1, A/2 and A/3 respectively, which are also available on record. On perusal of the said injury reports, the injuries upon the victims Sonamani Manjhian (informant), Dhobni Manjhian, Shrubali Manjhian Robari Manjhian were simple in nature except the one injury, which is said to have been inflicted on the right hand elbow of the injured informant Sonamani Manjhian was grievous, but said informant Sonamani Manjhin was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. The injuries on the persons of the remaining three injured persons were found to be simple in nature and none of the injuries was found on the vital part of the body. Further it is found that the manner of occurrence as stated in the FIR that the accused appellants had brutally assaulted the informant’s people, had not been corroborated in the depositions and testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and therefore the learned trial court after appreciating the evidences in a comprehensive manner, has rightly held the guilt of the accused appellants for the minor offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 of IPC with the aid of section 149 of IPC. 10. PW-1 Jhamulal Rawani is a seizure list witness and he had proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 1, but since the I.O in this case, has not been examined and therefore the contents of the seizure list could not be proved as per the established procedure. 11. PW – 2 Madan Rawani is another seizure list witness and he had proved his signature in the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext 1/1, but also the recovered articles vide the seizure list could not be proved in absence of any material exhibits of the recovered articles nor the examination of the I.O on behalf of the prosecution in this case and therefore the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies of these two witnesses for putting the signature over the seizure list could not substantiate the charges levelled by the prosecution against the accused appellants. 12. PW -3 Robari Manjhian supported the case of the prosecution that her mother Sonamani Manjhian (informant-since dead and not examined by the prosecution), her sister Dhobain Manjhian and Surubali Manjhian were present in the agriculture field and they were collecting the harvested crops in the field. 12. PW -3 Robari Manjhian supported the case of the prosecution that her mother Sonamani Manjhian (informant-since dead and not examined by the prosecution), her sister Dhobain Manjhian and Surubali Manjhian were present in the agriculture field and they were collecting the harvested crops in the field. In the meantime the deceased Budheshwar Manjhi, Binod Soren, Polen Soren, Shiva Manjhi and Somiya Manjhi reached there holding lethal weapons in their hand including farsa, tangi, Kudali, bow and arrow and assaulted them. She specifically and pointedly stated about the accused appellants including Binod Soren, Polen Manjhi and Somiya Manjhian who had assaulted by tangi,Kulhari and lathi respectively. From the deposition of this witness in the cross-examination, it is found that there had been a landed property dispute of the agriculture field and the bone of contention was claim and counter claim over the landed property and also upon taking the paddy crops after harvesting. It has also been suggested during the cross-examination by the accused appellants that the paddy crops at the P.O. was being harvested by Budheshwar Manjhi and his family members and when they were taking away paddy crops after harvesting, the informant party assaulted them and killed Budheshwar Manjhi and the present case was instituted by the informant party in order to protect and counter themselves from the murder case in which the informant people including Sonammukhi Manjhian, Sohrai Manjhi, P.W.3 Robari Manjhian, P.W.5 Dhobni Manjhian and P.W.4 Surubali Manjhian were accused and they were convicted, inter alia, for the offence punishable under sections 302/149 of the IPC vide Sessions Trial Case No. 89/98 as evident from Ext.-A which is the certified copy of the judgment of Sessions Trial Case No. 89/98. 13. PW -4 Surubali Manjhian had also supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that the appellant No. l Binod Soren, appellant no.2 Polen Manjhi and appellant No.3 Somiya Manjhian reached at the place of occurrence along with weapons and they have assaulted the informant’s people including Sonamani Manjhian with tangi by appellant no.1 Binod Soren, Polen Manjhi(accused appellant no.2) by Kulhari to Dohbian Manjhian and Robari Manjhian and accused appellant no. 3 Somiya Manjhian assaulted Surubali Manjhian by lathi and after that the injured person were taken away to the Chandankiyari hospital for treatment. 3 Somiya Manjhian assaulted Surubali Manjhian by lathi and after that the injured person were taken away to the Chandankiyari hospital for treatment. In the cross exanimation, she has suppressed the material fact about the death of Budheshwar Manjhi while as a matter of fact, by virtue of the documentary evidences, particularly the judgment of the session trial No.89 of 1998 in which the informant’s people including Sonammukhi Manjhian, Sohrai Manjhi, P.W.3 Robari Manjhian, P.W.5 Dhobni Manjhian and P.W.4 Surubali Manjhian were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC along with other Section of IPC for the murder of Budheshwer Manjhi in the same occurrence. 14. PW – 5 Dohbani Manjhian was examined on behalf of the prosecution and supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that these appellant including Biond Soren, Polen Manjhi, Somiya Manjhian had inflicted injuries by tangi, Kulhari and lathi to the informant Sonamukhi Manjhian, Robari Manjhian & others. This witness had denied the entire defence story and the occurrence alleged in S.T. No.89 of 1998 (Ext.-A), which indicates that there is a direct concealment of the material facts of this witnesses because of the glaring evidences vide Ext-A which is admitted fact in the FIR itself that the deceased Budheshwar Manjhi was injured in the alleged altercation and Mar-pit. 15. Having taking into consideration the aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses and the evidences examined on behalf of the prosecution, it is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences including the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses particularly PW 3, PW 4 and PW5, who had received the injuries caused by hard and blunt substance as found and discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, this court does not find any legal infirmity in appreciation of the evidences by the learned trial court and therefore there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction passed against the appellants. 16. Accordingly this Court upholds the guilty and conviction of the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. 17. 16. Accordingly this Court upholds the guilty and conviction of the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. 17. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned defence counsel has pointed that it is case of year the 1996 and the accused appellants were suffering the miseries and hardships of the criminal prosecution since more than 25 years and all the accused appellants have become very old over a period of time during the pendency of this criminal case, which is evident as the appellant No.1 Binod Soren is about 60 years, appellant No.2 Polen Manjhi is about 45 years old and appellant No.3 Somiya Manjhin is about 75 years old. There is nothing on the record to show about their criminal history and further it has been urged on behalf of the appellants by the learned defence counsel that the father of the appellant No.2 and husband of the appellant No.3 namely Budheshwar Manjhi was killed in the said mar-pit from both the sides, hence a lenient view be taken. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, it is not found just and fair to send these appellants again in jail. It is manifest from the record that all the three appellants have remained in jail for a considerable period of time. Therefore all the three accused-appellants were sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of period already under gone. Since all the accused-appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 19. In the result the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Bokaro in connection with S.T. No.247 of 1997, arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.1457 of 1996 against these appellants is set aside and the order of sentence awarded to all the three appellants is reduced to the imprisonment for a term of period already undergone by all the three appellants Binod Soren, Polen Manjhi and Somiya Manjhaian. 20. The appeal is dismissed as above. 21. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.