) Aditya Bhagat … … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 880 of 2012 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2012 and order of sentence dated 06.08.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 99 of 1997) Aditya Bhagat … …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent ----- With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 887 of 2012 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2012 and order of sentence dated 06.08.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 99 of 1997) ----- 1. Ashok Bhagat 2. Abhibilash Bhagat 3. Ram Bilash Bhagat Versus … …. Appellants The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants For the State : M/s Atanu Banerjee & Amit Kr. Das, Advocates : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, SPP ----- ----- By Court : Both the criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment and, therefore, they have
Decision
been heard together and shall be disposed of by the common Judgment. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 323, 324, 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment and fine. 2. As per the FIR, on 20.04.1991 accused Ashok Bhagat, Ram Bilash Bhagat, Abhibilash Bhagat, Aditya Bhagat, Sudhir Bhagat and Rohit Bhagat were constructing a wall thereby obstructing the common path way. When the informant objected to it, Ashok Bhagat assaulted Hopana Manjhi with sword on his head and Abhibilash Bhagat assaulted Rohin Manjhi by farsa on his ear resulting in injuries to both of them. 3. On the basis of written report, Jaridih PS Case No. 31 of 1991 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and after cognizance, charge was framed and the appellants were put on trial. Ram Bilash Bhagat, Aditya Bhagat were put on trial for the offence under Sections 307/149 of Indian Penal Code whereas four accused persons 2 namely, Ashok Bhagat, Ram Bilash Bhagat, Abhibilash Bhagat, Aditya Bhagat were jointly charged for the offence under Sections 148, 149 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. Ashok Bhagat and Abhibilash Bhagat were separately charged for the offence under Sections 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Altogether eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including the injury report were adduced into evidence, marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence and false implication. Defence has adduced into evidence the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 05/1993 in which the suit filed by the informant party was dismissed, which has been marked as Ext A. 6. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that the injury reports (Ext. 1 & 2) adduced on behalf of the prosecution show that the injuries were superficial, and the doctor has opined them to be simple in nature. The doctor has been examined as PW8 who has deposed that the injuries were all simple in nature. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that in order to make out the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, assailant should be credited with an intention or knowledge to cause death. Such an intention is the essential ingredient of the offence. The intention can be ascertained only the nature of injury caused by injuries sustained by the injured. In the present case, by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be in any way dangerous to life. Under the circumstance, the conviction under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was without any material basis. Furthermore, as per the prosecution, Ashok Bhagat was having sword in hand and Abhibilash Bhagat was having farsa, and had they any such intention to cause death, they would have inflicted much more critical injuries to the injured, then as those proved. 8. Furthermore, it is submitted that the allegation of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is that there should be unlawful assembly with a common object. In the present case, object of the accused can be said that they were constructing a wall. There was no object on the part of the appellants to assault the informant party. It was the informant party who prevented the appellants from making construction over the land which resulted in the incidence. From Ext.A it will be apparent that the construction was being made on the land on which they had right, title and interest and in these circumstances, Section 149 of Indian Penal Code will not be applicable as there was no unlawful assembly nor any common object on their part. They merely acted in self defence. 3 9. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. After having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both sides and considering the evidence on record, I find much force in the submission of counsel for the appellants that the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code will not be made out as the injuries were superficial and simple in nature. Furthermore, necessary ingredients to attract vicarious liability under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is also not satisfied and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code will not be attracted and each of the individual will be liable for their individual act. 11. Allegation of assault is directed mainly against Ashok Bhagat, Abhibilash Bhagat and Rambilash Bhagat that they assaulted by sword, farsa and lathi, they are accordingly convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. No overt act has been attributed against Aditya Bhagat and, therefore, Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges and the sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. On the point of sentence, the incidence took place in the year 1991 and the accused persons viz Ashok Bhagat, Abhibilash Bhagat and Rambilash Bhagat have undergone rigorous of litigation for more than thirty years. Appellants are directed to be released for the period already undergone which will meet the ends of justice. Appeal preferred by Aditya Bhagat is allowed, and that preferred by the other appellants is dismissed with alteration in finding and sentence. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 21st March, 2024 NAFR/ AKT/Satayendra Uploaded