Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Anwar Ansari - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 95 of 1994
Decided on : 22-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :M/s. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the nature of injuries, the intention of the accused, and the application of the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code to determine the appropriate charges and guilt of the appellants.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Homicide - Sections 448/341/302/34 - Summary: The court found the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 448/341/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants Khurshid Ansari and Anwar Ansari was set aside. Appellant Anwar Ansari was held guilty for offences under sections 448/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was cumulatively sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months. Appellant Khurshid Ansari was held guilty of the offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code along with 448/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was directed to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed against the Appellant Khurshid Ansari for offences under sections 448/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation between the deceased and the appellants, resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants caused the homicidal death of the deceased amounting to murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to head injuries which were ante-mortem in nature, and the prosecution was able to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death. The court also found that the appellants were involved in the altercation and the assault that led to the death of the deceased.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the intention of the appellants during the altercation, and whether the appellants could be held guilty for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injuries, the intention of the appellants, and the circumstances of the altercation to determine the guilt of the appellants and the appropriate charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants Khurshid Ansari and Anwar Ansari was set aside. Appellant Anwar Ansari was held guilty for offences under sections 448/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was cumulatively sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months. Appellant Khurshid Ansari was held guilty of the offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code along with 448/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was directed to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed against the Appellant Khurshid Ansari for offences under sections 448/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Syed Saif Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.1994, passed by Sri Bal Govind Prasad, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 394 of 1993, arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No. 22 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. No.822 of 1993, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, held the appellants Anwar Ansari and Khurshid Ansari, guilty of the offences under Sections 448/341/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for six months under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one month for the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Anwar Ansari was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Shiv Kunwar Devi alleging therein that on 16.03.1993 at about 11:00 P.M., her husband Chhedi Gope told the appellants not to urinate near their wall which was outside his house as the stench of urine was unbearable. Chhedi Gope in order to express his anguish gave several spade blows on the wall of the appellant Khurshid Ansari due to which a portion of wall was damaged. Thereafter, he returned home. Both the appellants followed him to his house. The appellant Anwar Ansari slapped Chhedi Gope while the appellant Khurshid Ansari picked up a spade lying there and assaulted him due to which he sustained injuries, thereafter, both the appellants receded from there. Later on Chhedi Gope was taken to hospital where he died during the course of treatment.
4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants on 04.06.1993 under sections 448/341/323/324/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance Sri J.S.P. Choudhary learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 16.06.1993, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 23.08.1993, under Sections 448/341/323/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.
7. Harakh Gope (P.W.1), Shyam Sundar Singh (P.W.3), Anand Gope (P.W.4) and Kailash Singh (P.W.5) are hearsay witnesses. Harakh Gope (P.W.1) has proved his signature on fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1. Anand Gope (P.W. 4) has proved his signature on the fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked as Ext. 1/1.
Krishna Gope (P.W.2) is witness of the inquest. He has proved his signature and that of his brother on the inquest report which have been marked as Ext. 2 series.
Ram Nandan Gope (P.W.6) has been tendered by the prosecution.
Bina Devi (P.W.7) the daughter of the deceased and Shiv Kunwar Devi (P.W.8) the informant are eye witnesses and have supported the prosecution case.
Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext. 3.
Bhola Ram (P.W. 10) is the Investigating Officer of this case, he has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 4. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Ext. 5. He has also proved the place of occurrence which is the courtyard of the deceased Chhedi Gope.
8. Statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.
9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, a
