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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Sankar Mehra and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 297 of 2010
Decided On : 22-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Nivedita Kundu
For the Respondent: Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.

Headnote:

Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 452, 341, 323, 307, 380, 504, 34 - Appeal against judgment of conviction - There was a land dispute between informant and accused persons - Trial was held and after conclusion of trial learned trial court convicted and sentenced accused persons or appellants under sections 307/34,323/34 and 380/34 of IPC - Appellants argued that it is important to know that this case has emerged due to existing enmity between parties and that there is a land dispute subsisting between parties and there is pendency of case or litigation between parties - Allegations are malafide and motivated and conviction and sentences need to be set-aside - State argued that there is ample evidence to convict appellants and some of arguments of appellants such as non-examination of father, non-examination of Investigating Officer, which seems defective, are only minor in nature and inconsistencies in evidence – Held, given nature of injury that has been indicated to be simple in nature, offence under section 307/34 IPC is not made out and at most offence under section 323/34 IPC can be made out against all appellants - Regarding conviction of appellants under section 380/34 IPC, no evidence regarding same as there has been no recovery - For conviction of appellants under section 380/34 IPC, benefit of doubt may be extended to appellants - Conviction of appellants under section 307/34 IPC and 380/34 of IPC and its corresponding sentences are set-aside, but conviction of appellants under section 323/34 IPC is sustained and upheld - So, far as sentence under section 323/34 of IPC is concerned, Appellant was 64 years old at time of passing of impugned judgment and now after 10 years he would be 74 years old, remaining appellants are also in their fifties and have faced rigor and vigor of trial - Appellants are directed to undergo two months simple imprisonment for their conviction under section 323/34 of IPC with consolidated compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to both injured persons and in default appellants shall further undergo S.I. for two months - Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with S.T. No. 233 of 2008 arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case no. 75 of 2007, G.R. no. 602 of 2007 whereby and whereunder all the appellants were convicted under sections 307/34, 323/34 and 380/34 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, failing which to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. Appellants were sentenced to S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under section 380/34 IPC. The period, if any, undergone by the convicts in custody during trial was ordered to be set-off and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution as per written report dated 03.06.2007 of the informant Abhinandan Mehra-PW-4 is that on 3.6.2007 at about 8 p.m. he was going to sleep after taking dinner then accused Nakul Mehra started abusing him and told him that all the palm trees belong to him and he will cut all the palm tree tomorrow. On this, the informant said not to use abusive words and told him to settle the dispute through panchayati. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely, Nakul Mehra, Sankar Mehra, Bipin Mehra, Rajesh Mehra, Adesh Mehra, Kundan Mehra, Raja Mehra, Mithun Mehra, Kranti Mahra and Sanjay Mehra entered into the informant’s house armed with deadly weapons with an intention to kill him and started assaulting the informant with an iron rod on his head and other parts of his body. Thereafter, accused persons took him to a gali and there also they assaulted him. Rukmani Devi (P.W.1), grandmother of the informant, came to rescue him who was also assaulted by the accused persons with iron rod on her head and other parts of her body. Accused persons took away two sacks of rice and silver jewelleries weighing 20 bhars from the house of the informant. Informant further stated that there was a land dispute between the informant and the accused persons.

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant Pathargama P.S. case no. 75 of 2007 was registered under sections 452, 341, 323, 307, 380, 504, 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under section 341,323,324,452, 307,380 and 504/34 of the IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 307/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341/34, 452/34, 380/34 and 504/34 of the IPC. Trial was held and after the conclusion of the trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons or appellants herein under sections 307/34,323/34 and 380/34 of the IPC. Hence, this appeal.

4. Prosecution had examined altogether nine witnesses out of which PW-4 Abhinandan Mehra is the informant of the case; PW-1 Rukmani Devi, is the grandmother of the informant; PW-2 Parma Devi is the aunt (mausi) of the informant; PW-3 Nand Kishore Mehra is the uncle of the informant; PW-5 is Dr. Ambika Prasad Singh who had examined the injured informant PW-4 and PW-1; Remaining other witnesses PW-6, PW- 7, PW-8 and PW-9 were declared hostile.

5. P.W.4 Abhinandan Mehra is the informant of the case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on 3.6.2007 at about 8 p.m. Accused Nakul Mehra came to his house abusing him and said the whole palm trees belonged to them and they would cut them. Informant further stated that he told Nakul not to abuse him and to settle the dispute through panchayat. Thereafter, Nakul Mehra, Sankar Mehra, Bipin Mehra, Rajesh Mehra, Adesh Mehra, Kundan Mehra, Raja Mehra, Mithun Mehra, Kranti Mehra and Sanjay Mehra entered into his house with an intention to ki

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