Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Babulal Manjhi, son of late Dhachal Manjhi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 339 of 2004
Decided On : 11-12-2018
For the Appellant : Akhil Kr. Sinha, Tarun Kumar
For the Respondent: Vijay Kr. Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 341, 447 and 307/34 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Injury - Punishable - Case is based upon written report submitted before Officer in Charge Police Station alleging therein that there is a dispute with respect between parties for which proceeding was pending before court - It is alleged that at around informant Devi wife and her daughter went to harvest paddy crop from over which there was no dispute but subsequently informant was informed by his aunt that asking these persons and her daughter not to harvest paddy - Thereafter informant along with brother went plot and asked that why they are not allowing them to harvest paddy crop upon which altercation took place and both sides have started challenging each other - In meantime having arrow having arrow and having arrow and having arrow started assaulting informant with intention to kill him–Held, Sentence is concerned learned counsel for appellants has made a prayer that appellants have already served out rigorous imprisonment for one month as awarded by learned trial court for offence committed and punishable Indian Penal Code and sending them to jail after approximately will not bring any fruitful result in society as such instead of sending them jail Indian Penal Code appellants may be saddled with some fine amount - Learned counsel for appellants has also submitted that appellants are poor persons depending upon their agriculture in an infertile area Court is also view that instead of sending appellants to custody would be appropriate that appellants be awarded sentence Section Indian Penal Code as period already undergone by them with a fine each upon appellants are directed to deposit said fine amount within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - On deposit of said amount trial court will issue notice to injured and after due verification shall disburse same and tune - In default of payment of fine as imposed by this Court appellants shall serve a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as awarded Indian Penal Code appellants who are on bail their bail bonds are hereby cancelled but no action may be taken against appellants for period of eight weeks from of receipt of a copy of this judgment to comply order of this court failing which trial court is at liberty to take all methods for procuring attendance of appellant to serve out sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years as modified by this Court - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.01.2004, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2000, whereby all the four appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341, 447 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
However, one of the appellants namely Babulal Manjhi, son of late Dhanchal Manjhi has died during pendency of the appeal on 19.09.2016, as such, his case has been abated vide order no. 7 dated 29.11.2018. Now the present appeal is only heard with respect to rest three appellants namely Sonalal Manjhi, Paika Manjhi and Baso Manjhi.
2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Rameshwar Manjhi (P.W. 6) before the Officer-in-Charge, Jamua Police Station on 09.11.1998 alleging therein that there is a dispute with respect to jamabandi Nos. 3, 10 and 42 between the parties, for which proceeding under Section 144 CrPC was pending before the court. It is alleged that on 09.11.1998 at around 8.00 AM, aunt of the informant Jhumri Devi, wife of Chaman Manjhi and her daughter Sukur Muni went to harvest paddy crop from the Khata No. 25, plot no. 487, over which there was no dispute but subsequently, the informant was informed by his aunt that Babulal Manjhi has sent Ruru Rabidas, asking these persons i.e. Jhumri Devi and her daughter Sukur Muni not to harvest the paddy. Thereafter, the informant along with Chaman Manjhi, brother Rupu Manjhi and Sukhdeo Manjhi went to the plot and asked Babulal Manjhi that why they are not allowing them to harvest the paddy crop, upon which altercation took place and both sides have started challenging each other. In the meantime, Babulal Manjhi having arrow and farsha, Dheba Manjhi having arrow and lathi, Baso Manjhi having lathi, Sonalal Manjhi having arrow and danda, Paika Manjhi having arrow and Karhu Manjhi having lathi, started assaulting the informant with intention to kill him. Informant has further alleged that Babulal Manjhi, Sonalal Manjhi, Dheba Manjhi and Paika Manjhi shot arrows, which all hit on the body of the informant. It is also alleged that Babulal Manjhi assaulted the informant by means of farsha on his head. Dheba Manjhi assaulted Rupu Manjhi by means of lathi on right arm. Basu Manjhi and Sonalal Manjhi assaulted Sukhdeo Manjhi by means of lathi on head and left hand. Paika Manjhi, Rupu Manjhi and Karu Manjhi also assaulted informant by means of lathi and Dewa Manjhi and Karu Manjhi also pelted stone which did not hit anybody. On brawl, co-villagers came there and after causing serious injuries upon informant's side, accused persons have fled away. It is claimed that accused persons had intention to kill them.
3. On the basis of written report, police has registered Jamua P.S. Case No. 140 of 1998 dated 09.11.1998, under Sections 147/148/323/324/337/307/447 of the Indian Penal Code against six named accused persons.
4. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against four accused persons namely Babulal Manjhi, Sonalal Manjhi, Paika Manjhi and Baso Manjhi vide charge sheet no. 155 of 1998, dated 29.12.1998, under Sections 341/323/324/447/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
So far Dheba Manjhi and Karu Manjhi are concerned, they have not been sent up for trial by the police.
5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.01.1999 and case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.01.2000.
6. Th
