SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO, JJ.
Bhadar Lohar and Ors - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 107, 155 of 1996
Decided On : 30-01-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :M/s P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/149 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 82 and 83 - Evidence Act - Section 114 (g) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - FIR - Enquiry - Additional Sessions Judge Jamshedpur seven accused persons were convicted for charges Indian Penal Code- Accused were found guilty of rioting armed with deadly weapons and additionally convicted Indian Penal Code and rest four accused persons were found guilty of rioting and additionally convicted Indian Penal Code- By impugned order of sentence seven accused persons convicted Indian Penal Code were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life three accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for offence Indian Penal Code rest four accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence Indian Penal Code- All sentences were to run concurrently –Held, Court do not find that delay if any in seeing FIR Magistrate had led to any concoction or embellishment in prosecution story was recorded after about half an hour of incidence- testimony of prosecution witnesses P- in particular as discussed hereinabove do not persuade us to hold that prosecution had added and concocted facts only to implicate these accused persons as a result of delay- Prosecution witness both have in common vein stated that reason for killing was a fight or a quarrel that took place between deceased and accused persons during marriage which was seven days before occurrence- There was a grudge definitely borne by accused persons against (deceased) which was motive behind commission of offence motive for committing offence was thus also proved by prosecution- Court are therefore unable to accept contention of appellants that conviction of these appellants are based on conjunctures or surmises alone- As discussed hereinabove in sufficient detail Court are of considered view that prosecution had been able to prove their case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt Court are not inclined to accept plea that accused persons despite being a part of unlawful assembly which committed offence are liable to be given benefit of doubt- Upon consideration of all these and circumstances and for elaborate reasons discussed hereinabove we hereby uphold conviction of these appellants and affirm impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court – Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

2. Under the impugned judgment dated 09.05.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1993 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, seven accused persons were convicted for the charges under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Bhadar Lohar, Chhotababu Lohar and Ganesh Lohar were found guilty of rioting armed with deadly weapons and additionally convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rest four accused persons namely Vijay Lohar, Jagan Lohar, Mangal Lohar and Kallu Lohar were found guilty of rioting and additionally convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order of sentence dated 10.05.1996 all the seven accused persons convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The three accused namely Bhadar Lohar, Chote Babu Lohar and Ganesh Lohar were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest four accused namely Vijay Lohar, Jagan Lohar, Mangal Lohar and Kallu Lohar were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that all the convicts assailed their conviction in three criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 103 of 1996(R) and the present two criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 107 of 1996 (R) and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 155 of 1996 (R). A plea of juvenility was raised before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on behalf of three appellants Mangal Lohar, Kallu Lohar and Ganesh Lohar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.103 of 1996 through I.A. No.4393 of 2008. The matter was referred for enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 12.07.2018 to ascertain the claim of juvenility of those appellants as on the date of occurrence i.e. 18.03.1992. The Juvenile Justice Board after due enquiry found that all those three appellants namely Mangal Lohar, Ganesh Lohar and Kallu Lohar were juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 18.03.1992 vide orders dated 27.08.2018 and 12.10.2018 respectively. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2018 upon consideration of the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur held as under:-

“Hence, we do not enter into the adjudication of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 9.5.1996, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 168 of 1993, convicting these appellants for the offences under Sections 302/149 and 147/148 of the Indian Penal Code, which we maintain. However, since the appellants are found to be juveniles, the sentence for R.I. for life cannot be sustained against these appellants and accordingly, the impugned order of sentence 10.5.1996, passed by the Trial Court below, so far as these three appellants are concerned, are hereby, set aside.”

4. It is further pertinent to mention here that the appellant/convicts Jagga Lohar @ Jaggar Lohar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 107 of 1996 had died during pendency of the appeal on 16.11.2004. This was taken note on the basis of the report received from the concerned police station vide order dated 05.07.2018. It was accordingly held that Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 107 of 1996(R) abates as against appellant Jagga Lohar @ Jaggar Lohar and shall continue with respect of the other surviving appellants. Thus these present two appeals survives on behalf of the appellants Bhadar Lohar and Chhotebabu Lohar, appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.107 of 1996 and appellant Vijay Lohar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.155 of 1996(R).

5. We now proceed to deal with the present challenge. Investigation was started after institution of formal F.I.R. bearing no. Sidgora P.S. Case No. 26 of 1992 dated 19.03.1992 under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top