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

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Navneet Kumar, J.
Ganesh Choudhary and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1675 of 2003
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Jasvindar K. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Informant :Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 320 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or mean – Criminal Trial - Intention to kill - Assaulted by heavy iron - Appeal against conviction – informant tried to intervene asking as to why they were assaulting poor, upon which appellant no. 2 became angry and abused him and also assaulted him by a heavy iron, Sabbal (rod with sharp end) on his right leg due to which his right leg was fractured and he fell down - Thereafter all accused persons started assaulting him by lathi - Having seen his brother being assaulted, his own brother P.W.1 tried to save him, but appellant no.1 with an intention to kill him, assaulted him by sword on his left side of head and blood started oozing out from wound by which he fell unconscious and others continued to assault him and presuming him to be dead, they fled away - Whether this court can compound offences under sections 326 and 324 of IPC which are non-compoundable - Held, In a society governed by rule of law, just and fair expectations of law abiding citizen are the essence of justice delivery system - It is found that during the pendency of this appeal a joint compromise application has been filed vide the I.A.(Cr.) by all three injured persons namely injured-informant P.W.6, his injured brother P.W.1 and P.W.2 at one hand and by appellants on other hand supported with affidavits by each of parties - It is found that on intervention of close relatives and well-wishers of both parties including the appellants and informant people compromised matter amongst themselves and now informant and injured persons do not want to proceed with instant appeal - This Court can allow instant appeal be compounded taking into consideration mutual compromise between both parties as they have settled their entire disputes and differences amicably to dispel their misunderstanding without any coercion and threat as present joint compromise petition has been filed through aforesaid interlocutory application willingly and voluntarily by both parties - It is found that incident took place more than 20 years back and both parties being neighbours are living in a harmonious atmosphere and hence for ends of justice let offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 be compounded under circumstances of present case - Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Deoghar in S.T. No.281 of 2001, arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No.191 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.435 of 2000, whereby and where under the appellant No.1 Ganesh Choudhary is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and appellant No.2 Akhileshwar Choudhary is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and further the appellant No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant No.2 was sentenced for seven years and also a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of fine, he will have to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

2. Briefly stating the prosecution story as unfolded in the written application dated 12.10.2000 by the informant Rohit Chodhary (PW- 6) addressed to Officer In-charge of Madhupur Police Station, Deoghar, is as under :

The informant Rohit Choudhary stated that on 12.10.2000 at 7.30 A.M., one Laxman Choudhary armed with lathi, Baikunth Chaudhary armed with lathi, Ganesh Choudhary (Appellant no.1) armed with sword, Kamdeo Chaudhary armed with Bhala, Damodar Choudhary armed with lathi, Akhileshwar Chaudhary (Appellant no.2) armed with Sabbal and Sachidanand armed with Lathi arrived on plot No.90 area 34 dismal belonging to Nakul Hazam and with the help of labourers started tilling it. Upon objection from Nakul Hazam, the aforementioned persons assaulted him (Nakul Hazam) with lathi, fist and slap then Nakul Hazam fled away from there and reached in front of his (informant) door, behind whom all the aforesaid persons chasing him also reached there. He (informant) tried to intervene asking as to why they were assaulting the poor, upon which the appellant no. 2 Akhileshwar Chaudhary became angry and abused him and also assaulted him by a heavy iron, Sabbal (rod with sharp end) on his right leg due to which his right leg was fractured and he fell down. Thereafter all the accused persons started assaulting him by lathi. Having seen his brother being assaulted, his own brother P.W.1 Krishundeo Chaudhary tried to save him, but the appellant no.1 Ganesh Chaudhary with an intention to kill him, assaulted him by sword on his left side of the head and blood started oozing out from the wound by which he fell unconscious and others continued to assault him and presuming him to be dead, they fled away.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written application submitted by the informant PW – 6, a formal FIR was drawn vide Madhupur P.S. case No.191 of 2000 , District - Deoghar, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 of IPC and investigation of the case commenced. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter the charges were framed against the appellants and after the trial, both the appellants named above were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.

4. Heard the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf the appellants, the learned counsel Sri Vikash Kumar appearing on behalf of the injured persons including informant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. The learned defence counsel instead of arguing the case on merit submitted on behalf of the appellants that during the pendency of this appeal, one I.A.(Cr.) No.7698 of 2018 has been filed jointly on behalf of the appellants and injured-informant P.W.6, his injured brother Krishnadeo Chaudhary P.W.1 and Nakul Hazam P.W.2 at whose agricultural field the dispute arose for the compromise of this case in appeal and therefore in the light of the said compromise, it is urged on behalf of the appellants to allow this appeal and in support of his contentions, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned

        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