The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 404 of 2002 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.7.2002 and order of sentence dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1997/ 62 of 2002]. -------- 1. Sarfuddin Mian son of Akbar Mian 2. Islam Mian son of Akbar Mian 3. Gulab Mian son of Akbar Mian 4. Manjoor Mian son of Akbar Mian 5. Chinwa Mian son of Maidhu Mian 6. Jalil Mian son of Somar Mian 7. Kuna Mian son of Maidhu Mian All are residents of village Hathali Murgaon, P.S. Bishungarh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. APPELLANTS Versus ........... The State of Jharkhand ……… RESPONDENT …… For the Appellants : M/s Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Priyanka, Abhishek Kumar, Aman Deep, Advocates. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. …… P R E S E N T SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. …... J U D G M E N T Dated: 11.12.2024: By Court This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.7.2002 and order of sentence dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1997/ 62 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The appellants have also been convicted under Sections 307/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Page/1 Further they have been convicted under Sections 148 and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and three months respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
Facts
perused the FIR, evidences and all other documents. 3. On 01.07.1996, the informant was sowing paddy seeds over his land bearing Khata No. 9, Plot No. 76 at village Uprai- Murgaon, P.S. Bishungarh, District- Hazaribagh. While he was ploughing the field, all the accused persons came with deadly weapon and objected and obstructed him. Sarfuddin (appellant No. 1) questioned the informant as to why he is ploughing the field, which belongs to the accused. An altercation took place when Gulab Mian gave order to assault, upon which, the accused persons assaulted Ramdeo Rabidas (the son of the informant) by lathi and farsa (a weapon having one side of sharp edge). It is stated that with Farsa said Ramdeo Rabidas was assaulted on head. The son of the informant, namely Prakash Rabidas and Ashok Rabidas went to save to his brother, but they were also assaulted brutally. When the informant raised alarm, Janki Kumar, Basudev Kumar, Rambriksh Rabidas and others came there when the accused fled away. Ramdeo Rabidas after sustaining injury became senseless and subsequently he died. Initially, the FIR being Bishungarh P.S. Case No. 35/96 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379 IPC. Later on, after the death of the deceased, Section 302 IPC was added. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for committing the offence and accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed and trial proceeded. 4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether twelve witnesses, who are as follows:- PW-1: PW-2: Rambriksha Das, Janki Kamar, Page/2 PW-3: PW-4: PW-5: PW-6: PW-7 PW-8 PW.9- PW-10 PW-11 PW-12 Ashok Rabidas Prakash Rabidas, Basudeo Kamar, Rameshwar Rabidas, Bhikhu Rabidas, Doctor Bipin Prasad Kumar, Damodar Rabidas, Ram Binod Singh, Dr. Tejpati Singh and Tejan Mahto 5. 6. Several documents have also been exhibited in this case. After closure of evidences, the statements of these appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which the appellants have pleaded innocence. 7. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charges levelled against these appellants to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, thus this appeal. 8. The most important witness in this case is the informant, who is P.W.9 and P.W No. 3 and 4, who are the injured witnesses. P.W.9 reiterated his statement what he has stated in his Fardbeyan. He also stated that appellant No. 1 -Sarfuddin assaulted the deceased twice on his head by the back side of farsa. He also stated that he is the owner of the land and he was cultivating the land. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses and they are the son of the informant. P.W. 3 stated that appellant No. 1 assaulted on the head of the deceased by farsa. P.W. 4 also stated that the deceased was assaulted on the right side of the head by farsa. P.W. 1 stated that the deceased was assaulted from the back side of the Bhala (spear) on his head. P.W. 2 also stated that the deceased was assaulted on his head by farsa by appellant No. 1 and he was also assaulted on the head and the chest. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, so far as the other accused are concerned, stated that all had assaulted the deceased and the injured witnesses. Page/3 9. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who had examined Prakash and Ashok Rabidas. He also examined the deceased. Thus from the evidence,
Legal Reasoning
we find that the prosecution has established that the appellants have assaulted the deceased and his two brothers i.e. P.Ws. 3 and 4. 10. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, is P.W.11. He found bandage on the head of the deceased and after removing the bandage, he found stitch wound which was brain deep over the mid of scalp. The size of the wound is 2 ½ x 1 inch. He also found one underlining fracture. Rest four injuries which he found were bruises on the chest, on the back and on the hip. Thus, from the evidence of the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body, it is clear that there was assault upon the deceased and the deceased died a homicidal death, as there was head injury. The aforesaid fact is also established from the postmortem report, which is Ext.-7. From the evidence of the Doctor, we find that he has not stated about the injury, which is on the head was sufficient to cause death in normal course. But from the injury, we find that the death is homicidal. 11. The entire dispute arose in relation to ploughing the field. It has come in evidence of P.W. 3, 4 and 9 that they were ploughing the field, when these appellants came and obstructed. The I.O. of this case also stated that the sale deed is also in favour of the informant. When we go through the evidence of P.W. 5- Basudeo Kamar and P.W.6- Rameshwar Rabidas, who are independent witnesses, we find that P.W.5 in para 9 and P.W. 6 in para 11 have stated that the land in question, which is the place of occurrence, and where the informant party was ploughing was in possession of the appellants. They further stated that these appellants used to plough the filed and used to enjoy the fruits. P.W. 6 also stated that since the year 1990 after purchasing the land in question, the appellants were ploughing the field and were in possession of the same. 12. Thus, the statement of two prosecution witnesses is sufficient to prove that the appellants were in possession over the land in question. When the appellants were in possession over the Page/4 land in question, as per the FIR, it is the informant and others who went there to plough the field. It has been established from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 9 that these witnesses (the informant and his sons) were present in the land and they were ploughing and sowing the seeds, which was being objected by the appellants. Since the prosecution witnesses have narrated that the possession was with these appellants, it was but natural, the appellants will object any type of trespass. They were bonafidely protecting their possession. 13. So far as the assault is concerned, we find that there was only one assault on the head of the deceased. P.W. 1, who is an independent witness, stated that the assault was made by the back side of the Bhala. If there would have been any intention to commit murder of the deceased, the pointed portion of the weapon could have been used, which was not used here. Further the blow is only one on the vital part of the body. 14. Thus, we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that this case cannot come within the purview of Section 302 IPC. There was dispute between the parties because of the possession of the land, and prima facie, we are of the opinion that the informant were the trespassers as possession was with the appellants. 15. Since we have come to a conclusion that this case will not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion from the evidence as well as medical report that this case is covered under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Now, so far as sentence is concerned, we find that the incident had occurred on 01.07.1996 and these appellants have faced the rigour of the criminal proceeding for more than 28 years, thus we reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period which they have already undergone. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, so are the bailors. Page/5 17. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment and sentence, this appeal is dismissed. 18. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 19.
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: the 11th December, 2024. NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3. Page/6