Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 703 (JHR)

Congress Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-22

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in S.T. No. 117 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned court below convicted the appellants u/s 341, 323 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one month each under sections 341 of IPC, RI for six months each under section 323 of IPC and further RI for two years each u/s 325 of IPC and further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 02.08.1998, the informant and his cousin brother Rewat Rana were ploughing the field at mauja Barasinga Bahiyar at about 9.30 a.m. when the accused Angrej Roy and Congress Roy came there and started to uproot the seed plants of paddy crops from the field of the informant. The informant protested them upon which the accused persons abused him and claimed the said land as their own. Thereafter, the accused Congress Roy gave blows by a piece of bamboo to the informant causing him injuries on left hand, shoulder, back and neck. The informant fell down and thereafter the accused Angrej Roy further assaulted the informant by danda. Rewat Rana tried to save the informant, but, he was also assaulted by the accused persons. On alarms the witnesses reached there. However, Rewat Rana fled away to his village and when the witnesses reached the place of occurrence they sprinkled water on the face of the informant on which the informant regained his consciousness. He has further alleged that the accused persons are mighty persons and he came to Sadar Hospital, Giridih on 3.8.1998 and got himself treated there. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ramesh Rana this case was registered as Deori P.S. Case No. 77/98 u/s 341, 323, 325, 307/34 of IPC against the above named accused persons and the cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M. Giridih under the aforesaid sections against the above named accused persons and committed this case to the court of sessions on 06.03.2000 for trial and disposal where this case was numbered as S.T. Case No. 117 of 2000. Thereafter charge was framed u/s 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 & 307/34 of IPC on 14.08.2001 against the above named accused persons. The learned trial court after conducting the trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. 4. Heard Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments on behalf of the appellants 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and against the material evidences brought on record and the evidences brought on record by the prosecution have not been analyzed in a holistic manner. 6. Further, it has been pointed out that the non-examination of I.O. has caused the serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants and the learned court below has also failed to appreciate that there was an old enmity due to land dispute between them and other family members and the appellants have also not been properly examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. Further, it has also been pointed out that at the time of trial both the appellants Congress Roy was aged about 45 years old and Angrej Roy was 56 years old and over a period of time now they have become very old i.e. aged about 65 and 70 years respectively and they have been suffering from trauma and misery of criminal prosecution for a long period of time and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence and he may be released on probation u/s 360 of Cr.P.C. Arguments advances on behalf of the State 7. On the other hand, leaner A.P.P. for the State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants after appreciating the entire evidences available on record. Both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 325 read with section 34 of IPC and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is accordingly fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard the parties perused the record of this case including the Lower Court Record. 9. Appraisal & Findings 8. Having heard the parties perused the record of this case including the Lower Court Record. 9. It is found that in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution altogether five witnesses have been examined out of whom P.W. 1 is Rewat Rana, P.W. 2 is Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar, P.W. 3 is Bhuneshwar Rana, P.W. 4 is Raghu Rana and P.W. 5 is Ramesh Rana, who is the informant of this case. 10. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the place of occurrence is an agricultural field which is a disputed land and the same has been admitted by both the parties. It is found that P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 are the injured eye witnesses and P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 had seen the injuries on the person of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. The Doctor P.W. 2 has also examined and he had found the injuries also and in this backdrop, this Court proceeds to examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defence. Admittedly, there was an enmity between the accused appellants and the informant due to landed property dispute and it is a well settled principle of law that the enmity is a double edged weapon and, therefore, the possibility of false implication as well as committing the offence are imminent. 11. At the outset, P.W. 5 Ramesh Rana is the informant of this case and supporting the case of the prosecution categorically stated that both the accused persons Congress Roy and Angrej Roy had come with lathi and tangi respectively and they started assaulting the informant and his cousin brother Rewat Rana in his field where both were working by which the left and right hand’s palm of the informant was injured and one ring finger was also broken. It has also been stated by the witness P.W. 5 that both of them had assaulted him on the left shoulder and neck and they continued to assault. It has also been stated by the witness P.W. 5 that both of them had assaulted him on the left shoulder and neck and they continued to assault. He further deposed that his cousin brother Rewat Rana raised hulla (Alarm) and the accused persons had also assaulted him and after sometime Bhuneshwar Rana and another villager Jharkhandi Mistri came there then the accused persons fled away, it is further deposed that thereafter he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Giridih carried by Bhuneswhar Rana and Jharkhandi Mistri for the treatment and on the advice of doctor, he was taken by them to the police station and he gave a written report before the Officer- In- charge by this witness P.W. 5 and has proved his signature on his fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1/1 in this case. 12. The learned trial court has rightly appreciate the testimonies of this witness and came to the conclusion and in the cross examination nothing could be brought on record to disbelieve the version of this witness. 13. P.W. 1 Rewat Rana is another witness who got injured in this occurrence and he was also an injured eye witness. He explicitly stated in his deposition that he along with informant P.W. 5 were present in the field at the time of the occurrence and he had fully supported the version as deposed by P.W. 5 and no major inconsistency has been found as appreciated by the learned court below. 14. P.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Rana although he did not see the occurrence, but, reached on the hulla raised by the cousin brother Rewat Rana (P.W.1) and Ramesh Rana (P.W.5) who were injured and had also seen the injury on the person of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. This P.W. 3 Bhuneshwr Rana in para 5 in his evidence had accepted that there was a land dispute between both the parties. 15. This P.W. 3 Bhuneshwr Rana in para 5 in his evidence had accepted that there was a land dispute between both the parties. 15. P.W. 4 Raghu Rana is the hearsay witness and he had also reached to the place of occurrence after hearing the hulla and saw P.W. 5 and P.W. 1 were lying in the injured condition and in the cross examination this witness has also accepted that there was an enmity between the parties due to landed property dispute and thus from the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 supported by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 it is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the depositions of these witnesses and came to the conclusion which is further sustained by Dr. P.W. 2 Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar who had examined the P.W. 5 on 03.08.1998 at 3:10 p.m. and found the following injuries: i. Swelling with pain and tenderness on the ring finger left side with fracture of the base of proximal phallynx. X ray confirmed. ii. Swelling over left dorsum of the wrist and hand with pain and tenderness. iii. Pain and tenderness over left scapular Region. iv. Pain with Tenderness on the base of neck right side. v. Swelling with pain and tenderness over left side of the leg in the middle. From the injuries found by the doctor it is stated by him that all the injuries are simple in nature except injury no.1 which was grievous. Injury report was marked as Exbt. 2. 16. Further, it is found that the defence taken one behalf of the appellant that the non-examination of the I.O. has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant. It is well settled principle of law that the non-examination of the I.O. does not ipso facto caused prejudice to the defence of the appellant, provided the allegation as set out in the FIR is fully corroborated with consistent depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case it is found that no inconsistency and discrepancy has been found in the deposition of P.W. 5 (informant) between his statement in FIR and the deposition which is recorded during the course of the trial. In the present case it is found that no inconsistency and discrepancy has been found in the deposition of P.W. 5 (informant) between his statement in FIR and the deposition which is recorded during the course of the trial. Similarly, P.W. 1 who is also said to be the injured eye witness Rewat Rana has also supported uniformly and consistently the version of the informant P.W. 5 in his deposition and it has been further supported by another witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and substantiated by the Dr. P.W. 2 and hence, the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that non-examination of the I.O. has not caused prejudice to the defence of the appellant in the case. 17. Having taking into consideration the aforesaid evaluation of the evidences and the testimonies of the witnesses, it is found that the defence taken on behalf of the appellant that due to the enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case does not hold good because of categorical and explicit depositions of witnesses particularly P.W. 5 and P.W. 1 supported by the P.Ws. 3, 4 and 2 and, therefore, the testimonies of D.W.1 examined on behalf of the appellants in order to bring a few documents Ext.A and Ext B to B/4 to take defence of enmity between the parties which is an admitted fact does not help at all. 18. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error of law in appreciation of evidences by the learned court below and this Court does not find any legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in S.T. No. 117 of 2000 against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323 and 325 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 19. Accordingly, this court upholds the conviction passed against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323 and 325 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 20. 19. Accordingly, this court upholds the conviction passed against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323 and 325 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. 20. Learned defence counsel for the appellants submitted that both the appellants over a period of time has become very old and at the time of trial they were aged about 45 and 56 years old and after the lapse of about 17 years they have become about 62 years 73 years age, and they have been suffering from the trauma and misery of the criminal prosecution for the long period and, therefore, instead of awarding sentence they may be released on probation. 21. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in view of the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants a suitable order may kindly be passed on the point of sentence. 22. Having taking into consideration the fact that it is an admitted case that both the parties are on inimical terms with respect to the landed properties and there is nothing on the record to show their criminal antecedent and it is found that the appellant Angrej Roy is about 73 years old and Congress Roy is about 62 years old. The occurrence is said to have taken place as far as back in the year 1998 about 24 years back. In this view of the matter, it is found that both have been suffering a lot in this criminal proceeding, and in this view of the matter it is just and proper to take a lenient view and instead of confirming the sentence as awarded by learned court below/or awarding sentence it is found just and proper to release both the appellants after due admonition to meet the ends of justice. 23. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in S.T. No. 117 of 2000 is set aside and both the appellants are directed to be released after due admonition. 24. In the result this appeal is dismissed as above. 25. Let the LCR be sent back to the learned court below to comply the order of this Court and to take the necessary action.