Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Parameshwar Mandals/o Late Gurudayal Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2003
Decided On : 20-12-2018
Gaurav, Adv., Lily Sahay, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence related to land ownership, injuries sustained, and witness testimonies to determine the aggressor in an assault case.
Headnote:
Assault - Land Dispute - IPC 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149 - The judgment referenced and discussed the provisions of IPC sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, and 326/149. The court analyzed the ownership and possession of the land, injuries sustained by the parties, and the nature of the assault. The court upheld the conviction and modified the sentence based on the mitigating circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting the informant and others during a land dispute. The prosecution's case was based on the written report of the informant, witness testimonies, and medical evidence. The appellants argued inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and presented a counter case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the prosecution's case, indicating that the appellants were the aggressors in the assault. The court also considered documents favoring the informant's ownership of the land. The judgment upheld the conviction and modified the sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the land, credibility of witness testimonies, nature of injuries sustained, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the ownership and possession of the land, injuries sustained by the parties, and witness testimonies to determine the aggressor in the assault. The judgment also considered mitigating circumstances in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld with a modification in the sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
JUDGMENT
Ratnaker Bhengra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the state.
2. As per report received appellant No.7 Gopi Nath Mandal and appellant No.9 Chhoten Pujahar died. Hence, their appeal stands abated.
3. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2001 whereby, the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence under sections 148, 323/149,325/149,326/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months u/s 326/149 IPC, R.I. for 4 years u/s 325/149 IPC, R.I. for 1 year U/s 323/149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years u/s 148 IPC. It was further ordered that 60% of fine deposited shall go to the Gulam Mandal (informant) and Jeevlal Mandal (injured). All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution case as per written report of the informant Gulam Mandal PW-5 dated 23.9.2000 is that a case in respect of J.B. No. 16 plot No. 33 having an area of 7 acres 64 decimals was allowed in favour of the informant by the Court of LRDC. On the date of occurrence i.e. 23.9.2000 at 7:00 O''clock in the morning the informant along with his family members and few others was ploughing the said field with bullock in the meantime all the accused persons thirteen in numbers variously armed with lathi, danda, iron rod and bow came to the said field and they abused the informant and others and on protest they assaulted the informant and one Jeevlal Mandal by lahti, rod and bow causing injury to them resulting in a fracture on the right leg of the informant.
5. On the basis of the written report Jasidih P.S. Case No.162 of 2000 was registered and investigation was taken up. After the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against above noted accused appellants. Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused under section 147/148/323/149, 307/149, 504/149 IPC which they denied the charges. After the trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
6. In support of its case ,prosecution had examined altogether nine witnesses and exhibited certain documents i.e. Ext.1 to 12. Defence side also exhibited certain documents i.e. Ext A to Ext. G.
7. Pw-5 Gulam Mandal, the informant stated that he was ploughing his field at plot No. 33, meanwhile all above noted accused persons came there and started abusing them and on protest accused Parmeshwar Mandal assaulted this witness by rod on his right leg causing fracture of leg, accused Gopi Nath Mandal assaulted Jeev Lal Mandal by arrow below his eye causing disfiguration of his face. On hulla, witnesses came there and saved them. During his evidence he had proved his signature in his written report marked as Ext. 1.
8. Pw-9, Jeev Lal Mandal, injured stated that at the time of occurrence he was ploughing plot No. 33 field along with others, meanwhile all above noted accused persons came there and told to stop ploughing the field and on protest all accused persons started assaulting them. Accused Parmeshwar Mandal assaulted Gulam Mandal by rod on his leg causing fracture to it. Accused Gopi nath Mandal assaulted this witness by arrow causing injury below his right eye.
9. P.W.1, Jiv Lal Mandal stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7-8 O''clock in the morning informant was ploughing the plot No. 33. In the meantime, all above noted accused persons armed with lathi, bricks, bow-arrow came there and told the informant to stop ploughing the field and on protest they assaulted informant and Jeev Lal Mandal.
10. P.W.2, Kishan Mandal stated that at the time of occurrence he was working in his field along with others. In the meantime, all
