Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Hiralal Sahu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 311 of 2012
Decided On : 22-07-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325 and 341 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Criminal revision - Assault - Wrongful restrain - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution story, in brief, as per the written report of the informant is that he had gone to house of his brother-in-law and returned about 1:00 p.m. and upon returning, he saw his wife in injured condition and blood was oozing out from her head and right leg was swollen and when he asked her about the injury, his wife told him that his nephew (petitioner no. 1) and 2) and his brother (petitioner no. 3) had assaulted her with lathi and caused injury to her - It was alleged that cause of dispute was that there was dispute between informant and his brother regarding partition of land and Bucha Sahu tried to erect wall in his land.
Finding of the Court:
Court finds that injured victim has fully supported prosecution case and her evidence is supported by evidence of her husband, investigating officer of case as well as doctor. Oral evidence of victim matches with medical evidence and injury report has been proved. Defence was in total denial of incident in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has not led any defence evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity or any material irregularity in impugned judgment of conviction of petitioners under section 323 of IPC. Accordingly conviction of petitioners is upheld. Incident is of year 2006 and more than 15 years have elapsed from date of incident; present age of petitioner no. 3 is 65 years, ends of justice will be served if sentence of petitioner no. 3 is modified to some extent considering his present age and some victim compensation is directed to be given to victim. Accordingly sentence of petitioner no. 3 is modified and limited to period he already remained in judicial custody in connection with present case with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and victim compensation to extent of Rs. 7,500/-. Fine amount as well as the amount of victim compensation is directed to be deposited by petitioner no. 3 before learned court below within 2 months from date of communication of this order to learned court below. Amount of victim compensation is directed to be remitted to victim/wife of informant after due identification. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount as well as victim compensation amount within stipulated time frame, bail bond furnished petitioner no. 3 will be immediately cancelled and he would serve sentence as imposed by learned court below - So far as sentence of petitioner no. 1 and 2 is concerned same do not call for any interference.
Result: Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.
3. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in Cr. Appeal No. 114/2010. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal so far as offence under section 323 IPC is concerned, though with modification of sentence. The sentence under Section 323 of IPC was reduced from rigorous imprisonment of six months to rigorous imprisonment of three months on the ground that the offence was the first offence of the petitioners. The learned appellate court has also set-aside the conviction of the petitioners for alleged offence under Sections 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The judgment of conviction was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti vide judgment dated 24.07.2010 convicting the petitioners for offence under Sections 341/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 262/2006 in T.R. No. 218/2010 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 22/2006 dated 10.05.2006.
Arguments of the petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment of six months was given to the petitioners for offence under Sections 323 of the IPC. He further submits that before the learned appellate court, only the conviction under Section 323 of IPC was sustained and the learned appellate court reduced the sentence to three months. So far as conviction under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners were acquitted for the said offences. He submits that the present offence of the petitioners is the first offence.
6. The learned counsel further submits that so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they had surrendered before the learned court below on 13.04.2012 and petitioner No. 3 had surrendered on 02.05.2012 and they were directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2012 and thereafter a few days must have been taken by them to furnish the bail bond. He submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have certainly remained in judicial custody for more than 15 days and so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he has remained in judicial custody for more than 10 days. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were 27, 23 and 50 years of age respectively on the date of conviction i.e., 24.07.2010. He also submits that the First Information Report in the present case is relating to the incident of 29.03.2006, but the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable delay of one month and 13 days on 10.05.2006. He further submits that the petitioners have faced the rigorous of criminal case for a long period and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified to the period already undergone in judicial custody by the petitioners. He also submits that some fine amount may be imposed by this Court which may be remitted to the victim of the case. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the nephew of the informant and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of the informant and there is land dispute between the parties.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that although the learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code as a fracture was found in the body of the victim which was supported by X-Ray plate. However, the learned appellate court rejected the evidence of the X-ray plate on the ground that the same was not exhibited by the doctor but was exhibit
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
