Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 726 (JHR)

Suresh Rawani v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-27

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, (F.T.C.), Jamtara, in Session Case. No.136 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the accused appellants namely Suresh Rawani, Shambhu Rawani and Basuki Rawani (since deceased) were found guilty for the offence under sections 341, 323 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Further the learned trial court has convicted the appellant Usha Devi for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC only and instead of awarding the sentence, she was directed to be released after due admonition. 2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbeyan of PW – 5 Bijoy Singh (informant), which has been recorded by ASI, B.N. Tiwary of Jamtara P.S. at village Tilabad on 22.09.1993 at 06:45 p.m. Informant had stated that on 22.09.1993 at 6 O’ clock in the morning he went to the house of Nizam Khan regarding talk over compromise in a case but the accused persons had caused hurt to his wife while she was in her quarter and Shambu torn her blouse and took away Sikri made of silver and a ear ring made of gold. At the same time, Suresh Rawani, Shambhu Rawani, Basuki Rawani, Usha Devi came to the house of Nazim Khan and caught hold of Bijoy Singh (informant) and they started assaulting him by throwing stone. The informant fell down then accused persons assaulted him by fists and legs. In course of this occurrence, a packet containing Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) fell down from informant and the accused persons took away the same. The cause of occurrence is that there was a pending litigation in the court and accused persons wanted to kill him. 3. The informant fell down then accused persons assaulted him by fists and legs. In course of this occurrence, a packet containing Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) fell down from informant and the accused persons took away the same. The cause of occurrence is that there was a pending litigation in the court and accused persons wanted to kill him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn and police lodged Jamtara P.S. Case No.197 dated 22/09.1993 against the accused persons under sections 341, 323, 337, 307, 379, 34 of IPC and investigation was taken up and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 337, 307, 379, 34 of IPC against the four accused appellants Suresh Rawani, Shambhu Rawani, Basuki Rawani and Usha Devi and cognizance was taken up and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge has been framed by Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1 on 23.07.2002 under sections 341, 323, 337, 307 of IPC against all four accused persons and under section 354 of IPC against Suresh Rawani, Shambhu Rawani, and Basuki Rawani. The learned Trail Court after conducting the trial, found the appellants Suresh Rawani, Shambhu Rawani, Basuki Rawani guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC and the appellant Usha Devi was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and thereafter the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence/admonition was passed by the learned trial court, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned defence counsel Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra and learned APP Mr. Tarun Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants 5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned trial court failed to analyze the evidences brought on record by the prosecution in view of the fact that the so called injuries which are said to be simple in nature but the same Doctor (PW-4) stated that injuries of head might be possible by stone by pointed edge which is not corroborated by evidence on records and as such the findings of trial court is perverse and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Arguments on behalf of the State 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence therefore, there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 7. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case including the lower court record. 8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused appellants, it is found that the prosecution has been able to examine altogether five witnesses namely PW – 1 Sk. Nizam, PW – 2 Jagannath Rawani, PW – 3 Namita Singh (wife of the informant) PW – 4 Dr. Ashok Kumar and PW – 5 Bijoy Singh. It is found that PW – 1 Sk. Nizam and PW – 2 Jagannath Rawani have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 9. PW – 5 Bijoy Singh and PW – 3 Namita Singh are the FIR named witnesses and they were said to have been injured by the injuries inflicted upon them by the accused appellants and it is found that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in the light of the allegations as disclosed in the FIR and passed the impugned judgment of conviction as emanating from the evidences evaluated as under: 10. It is found that the informant PW – 5 Bijoy Singh stated that Suresh Rawani had pelted stones upon the wife of the informant Bijoy Singh and further the informant PW – 5. Bijoy Singh has stated that while he was returning from the house of Sk. Nizam, the appellant Usha Devi caught the bicycle and pushed to fell down and then the Shambhu Rawani assaulted him by stone and thereafter Usha Devi, Suresh Rawani and the deceased appellant Basuki Rawani had caused hurt to him. This witness further stated that the Suresh Rawani caused hurt by danda, Shambhu Rawani by leg and Basuki by bhala on his head, but somehow the informant rescued himself. He has proved his signature in the FIR, which has been marked as Ext. 3. This witness further stated that the Suresh Rawani caused hurt by danda, Shambhu Rawani by leg and Basuki by bhala on his head, but somehow the informant rescued himself. He has proved his signature in the FIR, which has been marked as Ext. 3. He had also stated that his wife PW – 3 also came there at the time of quarrel between them and she was also assaulted. 11. PW-3 Namita Singh has been examined on behalf of the prosecution, who has supported the case of the prosecution and she has stated that she was inside the house when Suresh Rawni, Basuki Rawani and Usha Devi came to her door and started abusing and at that time, her husband PW – 5 was not in the house and he had gone to take bath and when he came back, she told about the fact, then her husband went to Sk. Nizam and accused persons had also gone there and quarrel between them took place and she found that her husband was injured as there was injury on the body. 12. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the deposition of the Dr. PW – 4 Ashok Kumar, who had found the following injuries on the person of the informant Bijoy Singh, which is as under: “(i) Lacerated linear wound (1/2”x1/4”x1/4”) on left parital region on scalp. (ii) Abrasion 1 /2”x1/2” on left cheek (iii) Abrasion 1”x1/2” on right cheek below right eye (iv) Abrasion 1/2”x1/2” on right angles of mouth above upper lip. (v) Defuse swelling (3”x2”) on forehead (vi) Defuse swelling 2”x2” on the bridge of the nose (vii) Bleeding from gums of upper jaw in its anterior part (viii) Complains of pain in anterior chest wall All the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard blunt substance. This witness PW – 4 has proved the injury report as Ext. – 2. From perusal of the Ext. This witness PW – 4 has proved the injury report as Ext. – 2. From perusal of the Ext. – 2, it is found that the injuries are simple in nature and the injuries on the head might be caused by pelting the stone and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the deposition of the doctor vis-a-vis the injury report and come to a finding that the informant Bijoy Singh was injured by hard and blunt substance and in this view of the matter, after appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341 of IPC and apart from this, the two surviving appellants namely Suresh Rawani and Shambhu Rawani have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC in addition to Section 341 of IPC and this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned court below, inasmuch as there is no legal evidence to interfere with. It is also found from the record that the appellant Basuki Rawani has expired and since no close relative had come forward to continue with this appeal on behalf of the deceased appellant Basuki Rawani, therefore this appeal was already abated with respect to him vide order dated 12.04.2022. 13. In the backdrop, this court upholds the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, (FTC), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.136 of 1996 for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC against the appellants Suresh Rawani and Shambhu Rawani and for the offence punishable under section 341 of the IPC against the appellant no.2 Usha Devi. 14. So far as the sentence is concerned it is found that upon the appellant No.2 Usha Devi learned trial court did not pass any sentence and instead of awarding the sentence to her, she was directed to be released on admonition. Accordingly, this Court does not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition passed against this appellant no.2 Usha Devi. 15. For the sentences awarded to appellant No.1 Suresh Rawani and appellant No.3 Shambhu Rawani are concerned, it is found that there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history. Accordingly, this Court does not interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition passed against this appellant no.2 Usha Devi. 15. For the sentences awarded to appellant No.1 Suresh Rawani and appellant No.3 Shambhu Rawani are concerned, it is found that there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history. Further it is found from the record that the alleged incident has taken place in the year 1993 about 30 years back and as such, they have already suffered the trauma and misery of the criminal proceeding for a long period of time. Therefore, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the learned defence counsel Mr. K.K. Mishra that instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, they may be considered for awarding the sentence of fine by way of compensation to be given to the victim Bijoy Singh PW – 5. 16. Having taking into consideration the submission and aforesaid fact, this court sets-aside the order of sentence passed against these two appellants namely Suresh Rawani and Shambhu Rawani, the imprisonment of six months for the offence under Sections 323 of IPC and one month S.I. for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and after setting aside the aforesaid sentences passed against these two appellants, this Court instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, imposes a sentence of fine of Rs.1,500/-collectively by way of compensation to be given to the victim informant PW-5 Bijoy Singh in a composite manner under both the heads , for which the appellants are provided a period of three months from today to make the payment of sentence of fine by way of compensation to be given to the victim informant PW-5 Bijoy Singh. The learned Trial court after realization of the said fine amount of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred) collectively from both the appellants, by way of compensation, shall ensure the said amount be disbursed to the informant Bijoy Singh. In case, the said informant Bijoy Singh is not found available/or traceable or he is no more, then the said amount of fine may be disbursed to his kith and kin or any of his close relative as the learned court below may deem fit and proper. 17. In case, the said informant Bijoy Singh is not found available/or traceable or he is no more, then the said amount of fine may be disbursed to his kith and kin or any of his close relative as the learned court below may deem fit and proper. 17. This court also further imposes a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months in case of default of payment of aforesaid fine imposed upon the concerned two appellants namely Suresh Rawani and Shambhu Rawani within stipulated period of three months’ time and the learned court below is directed to ensure that both the appellants namely Suresh Rawani and Shambhu Rawani serve the sentence of imprisonment of six months in case of default of payment of fine of Rs. 1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred) by way of compensation 18. The learned court below is further directed to take all necessary steps as per the provisions of law to ensure that the appellants serve the imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine by way of compensation as awarded. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment they deposit the fine amount they (appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of said fine amount and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as above. 20. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below along with copy of this Judgment with a direction to the concerned trial court for its compliance.