Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Nageshwar Bhogta – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 454 of 2010
Decided on : 09-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1950 - Section 323 - Charge-sheet - Injuries - This appeal is preferred against judgment conviction and order of sentence both passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial whereby and where appellant was guilty for offence Section of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo for one year Section Indian Penal Code - Appellant was held guilty for offence Section Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years Section Indian Penal Code - Appellant Kapolei was held guilty for offence Section Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years Section of Indian Penal Code - Appellants detention in custody during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off – Held, Hence when one of person from appellants side namely Raj Kumar had died due to assault made by informant herein Mistry for which informant herein or Mistry was convicted Section part of Indian Penal Code for causing death of deceased Raj Kumar by judgment passed in Sessions Trial Additional Sessions Judge – So there is no reason to proceed for simple injuries caused to informant side herein as regard to Appellant as these two appellants had only caused simple injuries and did not inflict more harm than it was necessary though one of person from appellants side itself namely Raj Kumar had died - far as conviction of Appellant Section of Indian Penal Code is concerned find from evidence of injured Devi that she came to place of occurrence to rescue her son and husband - She was unarmed and was not part of assault between both parties however she was assaulted by Appellant - From injury report find that she was injured but as discussed in preceding paragraph grievous injury sustained by her as opined by doctor is doubtful - So conviction of Appellant is modified to one Section Indian Penal Code – Accordingly impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial far as it relates to Appellant are set aside and both these appellants are discharged from liability of bail bond - However conviction of Appellant is modified to one Section Indian Penal Code - Regarding sentence of Appellant find that occurrence is of year and till now more than years have passed appellant has faced rigor and vigor of trial and presently Appellant is in his fifties and hence Appellant will undergo modified sentence of simple imprisonment of three months and to pay compensation injured Devi and in default of payment of compensation amount he will undergo months simple imprisonment – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.C. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned APP.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 20.04.2010, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, appellant No.1 Nageshwar Bhogta was held guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No.2 Rameshwar Bhogta was held guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No.3, Kapildeo Bhogta was held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants detention in custody during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbayan dated 04.11.1993 of the informant Bhuneshwar Mistry (PW-4) son of Tukan Mistry (PW-2) is that on 04.11.1993 at about 8:30 am informant's daughter namely Sunita Kumari was going for grazing she goat. Mistakenly, one of the she goat entered into the paddy field of Raj Kumar Bhogta, on which, the son and daughter of Raj Kumar Bhogta assaulted his daughter. Then informant's daughter went weeping to her grandfather Tukan Rana (PW-2) and told about the incident. Thereafter, Tukan Rana went to ask the children of Raj Kumar Bhogta as to why they had assaulted his granddaughter. Then both the son and daughter of Raj Kumar Bhogta went running to their house and, thereafter, Raj Kumar Bhogta, Rameshwar Bhogta, Nageshwar Bhogta, Laxman Bhogta, Bisheshwar, Binod Bhogta and Kapildeo Bhogta came there forming an unlawful assembly armed with lathi, rod, spear and tangi and surrounded his father Tukan Rana (PW-2) and assaulted him, as a result, informant's father sustained injury. When informant went to save his father, then informant was also assaulted and then informant's mother came there then she was also assaulted by the accused persons as a result she also sustained injuries.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan, Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 122/1993 was registered on 04.11.1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and subsequently Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the charge-sheet. Cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under sections 147, 323 148, 341 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial was held and at the conclusion of the trial accused persons or the appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. The prosecution has examined, all together six witnesses in support of its case out of whom PW-4 Bhuneshwar Mistry is the informant of this case; PW-1 Kapuri Devi is the mother of the informant; PW-2 Tukan @ Barhi Rana is the father of the informant; PW-3 Binod Barhi is the brother of the informant; PW-5 Brijendra Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case and PW-6 is Sheo Prasad Mishra, the doctor who examined the injured persons.
6. PW-4 Bhuneshwar Mistry is the informant of this case. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence on 04.11.1993 at about 8:30 am his daughter was going for grazing she goat. After some distance there is a paddy field of Rajkumar Bhogta, Rameshwar Bhogta and Nageshwar Bhogta and on the ridge of this paddy field, his daughter was going to graze she goat and at that place son of Rajkumar had assaulted his daughter and said she goat had eaten paddy. Thereafter, informant's daughter went to her grandfather and said about the occurrence of assault on her. Informant further stated that, thereafter, his father Tukan Mistry and his daughter went to Rajkuma
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
