Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Ram Prawesh Ram, son of Jamirka Ram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 of 2004
Decided on : 02-05-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 324 – Instigation – Judgment of conviction – Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial whereby the sole appellant, has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year – The co-accused have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. – Held, Counsel for the State, has vehemently argued the case and has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. – Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that some contradictions has crept up in the case because of lapse of time but these are not fatal for the prosecution case and has fairly conceded, that Dr. S.P. Singh has not been examined, nor the prosecution has given any satisfactory explanation for non-examination of the Dr. S.P. Singh, who has issued injury report in favour of the prosecution. – Learned counsel for the State could not explain the various nature of injuries found on the victims caused by single weapon. – Learned counsel for the State further stated, that non-examination of the Investigating Officer and Doctor (S.P. Singh) may have caused some prejudice to the appellant. – Court has found force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. – It is true that injuries, which have been found on the person of the victims, cannot be caused by a single weapon, as alleged by the prosecution i.e. by garasha. – Furthermore, non-examination of the doctor and Investigating Officer with respect to the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence have caused serious prejudice to the appellant. – Further, non-examination of Ganesh Ram, another chowkidar present there and other independent witnesses, have also caused prejudice to the appellant. – Court is of the opinion, that the appellant is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. – This appellant is acquitted of the offence committed under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial P.S. Case consequent to G. R. – Appeal Allowed
Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anurag Kashyap and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 20.12.2003, passed by learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 1989, whereby the sole appellant, Ram Prawesh Ram has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. The co-accused, Sudarshan Mahto and Indeshwar Ram have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
3. Neither the State nor the informant has preferred any appeal against acquittal of Sudershan Mahto and Indeshwar Ram nor has preferred any appeal for the enhancement of sentence against the appellant.
4. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of Suraj Ram (P.W.2), recorded by Officer-in-Charge, Satyadev Singh posted at Mohammadganj police station in the district of Palamau, where the informant has stated that he is working as chowkidar in place of father of Indeshwar Ram, Rajendra Ram and grandfather of Ram Prawesh Ram (appellant), who have given him (Suraj Ram) consent to work, as a chowkidar and since then he has been appointed and working, as a chowkidar. The informant (Suraj Ram) has further stated that 2-3 months ago all three named persons (Indeshwar Ram, Rajendra Ram and Ram Prawesh Ram) were pressurizing him to leave the job of chowkidar and due to that today in the evening all the three accused persons in presence of Sudershan Mehta called both the brothers and asked them to leave the job of chowkidar immediately. When informant and his brother made a protest then, Sudershan Mehta, Rajendra Ram and Indeshwar Ram ordered and instigated Ram Prawesh Ram, who went his house and brought a garasha (sharp cut weapon) and on the order of the above three persons, Ram Parwesh Ram attacked, upon the neck of the brother of the informant, Baikunth Ram twice but his brother saved himself with his left hand and thus, Baikunth Ram (brother of the informant) sustained two injury on the left hand and fell down. When Ram Prawesh Ram tried to attack again, the informant came for rescue. Thus Ram Prawesh Ram assaulted the informant, on the left shoulder. On brawl, the villagers came and saved them (Baikunth Ram and Suraj Ram) and with the help of villagers, the injured were brought to the police station, where his fardbeyan has been recorded.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police registered Mohammadganj P.S. Case No. 23 /1988 dated 26.07.1988 under Section 307, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation the police submitted charge Sheet vide no. 18 of 1988 dated 27.09.1988, against all four accused persons under Section 307, 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.01.1989 and case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide notification dated 29.03.1989. The charge has been framed against three persons namely Indeshwar Ram, Rajendra Ram and Sudershan Mehta under Section 115/307 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.03.1994 and against appellant Ram Prawesh Ram under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.03.1994 but during the trial Rajendra Ram died and thus his case has been dropped by order dated 12.07.1999. The appellants pleaded their innocence and thus, have been put for trial.
6. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses.
P.W. 1 is Biswas Topno, who is a formal witness, who has proved the signature of the Officer-in-Charge, Satyadev Singh on the F.I.R. and marked the same as Exhibit 1.
During cross-examination, he has admitted that same has not been written in his presence.
7. Suraj Ram, informant of the case has been examined as P.W. 2. He is chowkidar no. 6/69. This witness has stated that on 26.07.1988 at around 6.00 p.m., while he was performing his duty, owing to the “Bakreed fes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
