Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 651 (JHR)

Jakir Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2024-07-01

AMBUJ NATH

body2024
JUDGMENT : AMBUJ NATH, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2013, passed by Shri Vijai Kumar Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2006 arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No. 41 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 334 of 2006, holding the appellant Jakir Ansari guilty of the offences under sections 379 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for three years for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Trial Court also imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the aforesaid offences. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant, alleging therein that on 19.07.2006 she was sleeping in her house with her children. At that time, her husband was not present. At about 12.00 a.m. she felt that somebody was probing her. she raised alarm. She saw that this appellant was present there and he started threatening her and also asked her to disrobe. When she resisted, he inflicted knife injury on her person and also on her sister who was sleeping in the same house. Thereafter, he fled away. She also found that the appellant had stolen her jewellery and two thousand rupees in cash from her house. 3. Charge was framed against the appellant under sections 376/511 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. content of charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences. On the basis of the materials available on the record, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 6. Prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses. Victim has been examined as PW-3. She has supported the allegation as made out in her written report. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 6. Prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses. Victim has been examined as PW-3. She has supported the allegation as made out in her written report. She has stated that the occurrence took place in the year 2006. She has stated that her husband used to reside in Lohardaga. She has stated that in the midnight she along with her children and sister were sleeping inside the house. Suddenly, she felt that somebody was probing her body. She woke up and raised alarm. She saw that the appellant was present there and he asked her to disrobe, otherwise he will kill her children. When her son raised alarm, the appellant put knife on his neck. She scuffled with him, due to which, there was cut on her hand. Her sister Neha also tried to rescue her, thereafter, the appellant fled away. She found that the appellant had taken some ornaments and two thousand rupees from her house. She has claimed to identify the appellant in the dock. She has proved the written report which has been marked Ext.-1 She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant is the co-villager. She has stated that other co-villagers reached the place of occurrence after the appellant had fled away. Neha Kumari who is the sister of the Informant, has been examined as PW-4. She has supported the prosecution case and stated that on the date of occurrence, she was present at the place of occurrence. She was sleeping inside the house with her sister and children. Her brother-in-law works in Lohardaga. On the cry of alarm, she woke up and saw that her sister was scuffling with the appellant Jakir Ansari. Jakir Ansari was holding a knife and pistol and threatened her of dire consequences. She has further stated that Jakir Ansari took away two thousand rupees and ornaments from the house of the Informant. She has claimed to identify the appellant in the dock. She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the appellant entering the house of the Informant. She has further stated that the appellant has stolen ornament kept in the box. She has claimed to identify the appellant in the dock. She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the appellant entering the house of the Informant. She has further stated that the appellant has stolen ornament kept in the box. She has further stated that Jakir Ansari was present there for more than two minutes after she woke up. Sanjay Ram (PW-6) is the husband of the Informant. He has stated that occurrence had taken place about five years ago. He works in Marwari Dharamshala, Lohardaga. He was informed about the occurrence. Naturally, he is not an eyewitness. Ekramul Haque (PW-7) has stated that in the morning of the occurrence, he heard that the appellant had entered into the house of the Informant. A Panchayati was held and they tried to resolve the dispute. During the course of query, Jakir Ansari vowed that no occurrence has taken place. Prosecutrix refused to take oath. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not an eye-witness. Dr. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary (PW-9) has been examined as PW-9. He has stated that on 20.07.2006, he has examined the victim and found one incised wound ½ cm x 1/8 cm x ¼ cm on the left palm. Injury was simple in nature caused by pointed sharp cutting instrument life knife or and dagger. He has proved the injury report which has been marked Ext.-4. From perusal of the injury report (Ext.-4), it appears that the findings of the doctor regarding the injury caused on the person of the Informant fully corroborates his ocular account given in the court during the trial. 7. Both the Informant (PW-3) and her sister Neha Kumari (PW-4) have supported the prosecution case and corroborated each other on the point of date and time of occurrence. They have stated that on the date and time of occurrence, they were sleeping in the house when the appellant entered there and probed the body of the Informant. He also took away the jewellery and two thousand rupees from the house. From perusal of the ocular account of the Informant which is corroborated by the medical report (Ext.-4), it is apparent that the Informant had sustained incised wound on her palm. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the Informant (PW-3) and her sister Neha Kumari (PW-4) to doubt their veracity. 8. From perusal of the ocular account of the Informant which is corroborated by the medical report (Ext.-4), it is apparent that the Informant had sustained incised wound on her palm. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the Informant (PW-3) and her sister Neha Kumari (PW-4) to doubt their veracity. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offences under sections 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Learned Trial Court is directed to take him into custody to serve out the remaining sentence, if not served. 10. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.