Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1000 (JHR)

Ganesh Sao S/o Ishwar Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2025-04-03

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State but no one appeared on behalf of the informant. 2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2004 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.207 of 2003), whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation under Section 307 of the I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 324 of the I.P.C. whereas other co-accused namely Lakshman Sao and Phaguni Devi were held guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and extended the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. being first offender. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.05.2003 at about 06:00 p.m., present appellant came in front of the house of informant Basant Narayan Thakur for putting hook in the electric pole situated in front of the house of informant with a view to commit theft of electricity but the electric spark started then informant’s daughter Sangita suggested the appellant to call an electrician and get the connection fitted with pole perfectly and upon this Ganesh Sao started abusing her which was intervened by the informant then present appellant caught hold of the informant and started assaulting him by lathi. In the meantime, accused Lakshman Sao also approached there and assaulted the informant by lathi on back. The informant raised alarm for help, meanwhile, Ganesh Sao gave a tangi blow on his head causing severe injuries. It is further alleged that informant’s daughter-in-law came to rescue him then Ganesh Sao gave another tangi blow on her head also. Informant’s another daughter-in-law Usha Devi also came to rescue them and she was also assaulted by lathi. Thereafter, Phaguni Devi wife of Lakshman Sao also came there and started pelting stones upon informant party. It is alleged that several villagers assembled on the spot then accused persons managed to flee away. 4. Informant’s another daughter-in-law Usha Devi also came to rescue them and she was also assaulted by lathi. Thereafter, Phaguni Devi wife of Lakshman Sao also came there and started pelting stones upon informant party. It is alleged that several villagers assembled on the spot then accused persons managed to flee away. 4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as Koderma P.S. Case No.141 of 2003. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.40 of 2004 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.207 of 2003) was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is allegation of causing injury to informant by lathi and tangi and the injury sustained by informant was also found to be simple in nature. The genesis of occurrence as depicted in the F.I.R. was taking electricity connection by hooking in the electricity pole. Therefore, there was no premeditation or any intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The whole occurrence took in a sudden manner and there was exchange of hot words and assault between the parties. It is further submitted that considering the overall aspects of the case, the learned trial court has taken a lenient view while awarding sentence to other co-accused persons who were also indulged in assaulting the informant party and extended the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. On the basis of entire proved case by the prosecution and the nature of injuries sustained by the informant party, the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant. It was appellant’s first offence. It was appellant’s first offence. Hence, he was also entitled for benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1958’) instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. The appellant has remained in custody about three months during the trial and post-conviction in this case and has sufficiently been punished. The appellant is also ready to deposit the fine amount awarded by the learned trial court, hence, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence and this appeal may be disposed of. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State defending the conviction and sentence of appellant has submitted that he has caused severe injuries on head by use of an axe which is a dangerous weapon and it was likely to cause death. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is also not entitled for any leniency in sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for respective parties. 9. It appears that in the course of trial altogether ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them, the most important witnesses are P.W.5 viz. Basant Narayan Thakur, who is the injured witness-cum-informant, P.W.9 viz. Sarita Devi, who is daughter-in-law of the informant and P.W.8. viz. Dr. Ram Nath Prasad, is doctor who has examined P.W.5 injured witness-cum-informant and P.W.9 Sarita Devi. P.W.5 viz. Basant Narayan Thakur, who is the injured witness-cum-informant, P.W.9 viz. Sarita Devi, who is daughter-in-law of the informant and P.W.8. viz. Dr. Ram Nath Prasad, is doctor who has examined P.W.5 injured witness-cum-informant and P.W.9 Sarita Devi. P.W.5 viz. Basant Narayan Thakur who has categorically deposed in his evidence that his daughter Sangita was sitting outside the house and at that time, accused appellant climbed upon his boundary and was putting hook on the Electric Pole whereupon informant’s daughter objected and in response, accused appellant started rebuking her which was intervened by informant then suddenly, accused appellant gave a lathi blow on his back and arms and also gave tangi blow on his head causing head injury to informant, thereafter, accused appellant’s brother Lakshman Sao also assaulted the informant with lathi.In his cross-examination, he has stated that earlier also the accused persons were doing electric theft.P.W.9 Sarita Devi daughter-in-law of the informant who has also categorically deposed in her evidence that accused appellant was hooking electricity wire after riding over the boundary wall whereupon her sister-in-law Sangita objected then the accused appellant started rebuking her. Thereafter, her father-in-law (informant) asked the accused appellant not to rebuke then suddenly, accused appellant started assaulting him with lathi on his hand and gave tangi blow on his head causing severe head injury then immediately, Sarita ran to save her father-in-law, accused appellant gave tangi blow on her head also which caused bleeding from her head and suddenly, she fell on the ground and became unconscious.P.W.8 Dr. Ram Nath Prasad has examined the injured P.W.5 viz. Basant Narayan Thakur (informant) and found following injuries: (i) One incised wound on right parietal region of scalp, size 3½” x 1½” x bone touch – blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on the right shoulder, size 1” x 3/4” with blood clot. (iii) Bruise on right wrist on postero medial aspect, size 2” x1½”. Above injury No.(i) was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos. (ii) and (iii) respectively were grievous and simple in nature, both injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. P.W.8 Dr. Ram Nath Prasad has also examined the injured P.W.9 viz. Sarita Devi and found following injuries: (i) Incised wound on right parietal area of scalp, size 3” x ½” x bone touch with blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on right scapular area, size 3” x 1½” with blood clot. P.W.8 Dr. Ram Nath Prasad has also examined the injured P.W.9 viz. Sarita Devi and found following injuries: (i) Incised wound on right parietal area of scalp, size 3” x ½” x bone touch with blood clot. (ii) Abrasion on right scapular area, size 3” x 1½” with blood clot. (iii) Bruise on left arm medial aspect, size 3½” x 1½”. Above injury No.(i) was opined to be caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos.(ii) and (iii) were opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 10. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence, the testimony of injured witnesses finds corroboration from the injury report. It is obvious that none of the injuries have been found to be dangerous to life or grievous in nature. The incident has also taken place in a sudden manner without any premeditation. Therefore, the required intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. appears to be absolutely lacking in this case rather at best, the offence committed by appellant falls under Sections 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. 11. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside but the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C is upheld. It appears that it was first offence of the appellant and no criminal antecedent has been attracted against him. Since the inception of occurrence, about two decades have been passed away and the appellant has not been indulged in any other criminal activities. 12. Under such circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained by the informant and his daughter- in-law and the nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. In this view of the matter, appellant is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court is also directed to release the appellant giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned trial court with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. The learned trial court may also call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and release the appellant on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the learned trial court. 13. In view of above discussions and observations, this appeal is party allowed 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. 15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.