The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 Yusuf Ansari, son of Late Rahman Mian, resident of village: Mahesh Marwa, PO: Fulchi, PS: Gandey, District: Giridih. ... Appellant -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Sultan Mian son of Usman Mian 3. Suleman Mian son of Usman Mian 4. Nasir Mian son of Rusan Mian 5. Gola Mian son of Rusan Mian 6. Munna Mian son of Hanif Mian 7. Mannan Mian son of Hanif Mian 8. Hanif Mian son of Chhedi Mian 9. Kalim Mian son of Tity Mian 10. Lato Mian son of Titu Mian 11. Nazbul Mian son of Titu Mian 12. Maqbul Mian son of Titu Mian 13. Sanaul Mian son of Titu Mian 14. Alauddin Mian son of Titu Mian 15. Jalil Mian son of Titu Mian 16. Usman Mian son of late Ramjan Mian 17. Taiyab Mian son of Kurban Mian All resident of village: Mahesh Marwa, PO: Fulchi, PS: Gandey, District: Giridih ... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Appellant : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, APP For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 17: Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate … Oral Order in Court Order No.15/ Dated: 10 th April, 2024 IA No. 2748 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 50 days' in filing the present acquittal appeal. 2. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken in paragraph nos. 5 to 8 of this interlocutory application, delay of 50 days' in filing the present acquittal appeal is condoned. 2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 Accordingly, IA No. 2748 of 2017 is allowed and disposed 3. of. Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the State, and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 17. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court-below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Court-below has committed gross error by acquitting the respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offence under sections 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Court-below has committed illegality by not relying upon the injury report. The learned counsel has further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case. The learned counsel has further submitted that PW-7, who is the informant, has fully supported the prosecution case and PW-6, wife of the informant, who had also sustained the injury, had supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel has further submitted that PW-4, the son of the informant; PW-1 Muslim Mian; PW-2 Md.Jamaluddin, and; PW3 Hasan Bibi have also supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that PW-8 Dr. D.C. Choudhary, who had examined the injured persons including the informant, has proved Ext. 1, Ext. 1/1, Ext. 1/2 and Ext. 1/3 respectively. It is further submitted that there were cut injuries on the right leg of the informant 3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 and, therefore, the learned Court-below has committed illegality by acquitting the respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offence under sections 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has further submitted that although the learned Court-below has convicted the respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code but has illegally released them by giving benefits under the provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- for a period of one year, therefore, this appeal be admitted and heard on merit. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 17 has also appeared and submitted that this is a case of releasing the respondent nos. 2 to 17 on furnishing the bond and hence instant acquittal appeal is not maintainable. It is submitted that the learned Court-below has rightly acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offence under sections 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code as no grievous injury was found during trial by the learned Court-below. It is submitted that the learned Court-below has convicted the respondent nos. 2 to 17 under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted under sections 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, they have been released on furnishing bonds. 7. 8. We have perused the records of this case. It transpires that the charges were framed against the respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offences under sections 307/149, 147, 4 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 148, 323/149, 324/149, 341/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code on 25.05.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. The prosecution in support of its case has examined eight (08) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) PW-1 Muslim Mian, (ii) PW-2 Md. Jamaluddin, (iii) PW-3 Hasan Bibi, (iv) PW-4 Abbas Ansari, (v) PW-5 Aamna Khatoon, (vi) PW-6 Aasmaa Bibi, (vii) PW-7 Yusuf Ansari and, (viii) PW-8 Dr. D.C. Choudhary. 10. After closure of the evidence, the accused persons i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 17 were examined under section 313 CrPC to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 11. Thereafter, the learned Court-below after hearing both the sides has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 12. It appears from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence that although the informant had sustained fracture injury and seven injuries on his person, however, the informant during his cross- examination had admitted that he had sustained no injuries by Lathi, Tangi or Sword and he had fallen down after sustaining the assault. 13. It further transpires that there were three cases pending between the parties and even the civil dispute is going on between the parties since the year 1982. 14. It further transpires that during course of trial before the learned Court-below, the prosecution has failed to produce the X-ray plate and report of the injuries sustained by the informant and as such, it would appear that the learned Court-below had acquitted the 5 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 respondent nos. 2 to 17 for the offence under sections 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. It is further evident that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined by the prosecution, which is also a lacuna on the part of the prosecution. 16. It also appears that several persons were injured, however, injuries on their persons were found to be simple in nature except upon the informant. 17. From perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it also transpires that there were several cases between the parties for the last 22-23 years. 18. It is well-settled that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of “Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka” (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544” has held that in case of two views, the view in favour of the accused should be preferred. 19. We have seen the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as has been discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and we find that the parties are in litigating terms for the last several years. 20. It also appears that the learned Court-below has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 17 on technical ground for non-production of X-ray plate and report of the injured persons including the informant and even the informant and other persons had not made any endeavour 6 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2017 to produce the X-ray plate of the injuries sustained by them during pendency of the trial before the learned Court-below. 21. On the basis of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, however, as the informant-appellant had sustained injuries and the learned Court-below had not awarded any compensation, we are of the view that compensation should be paid to the informant-appellant for the injuries sustained by him and since the informant-appellant had sustained fracture injury and the respondent no. 2 to 17 have been acquitted for non-production of X-ray report, hence, we direct the Secretary, DLSA, Giridih to provide a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the informant-appellant by way of compensation under the provisions of Victim Compensation Scheme, for the injuries sustained by him. 22. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this acquittal appeal is dismissed. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) S.B (Sanjay Prasad, J.)