Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Manoj Rajak, son of Kolha Rajak - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019
Decided on : 16-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - 323, 341, 504, 307/34 - Summary: The court allowed the delay condonation in filing the Criminal Appeal. The case involved the challenge of acquittal under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on the testimony of injured witnesses and cited legal principles from previous cases to support its decision. The court found the accused guilty under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the acquittal of the accused under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured witnesses testified to the assault and injuries caused by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court relied on the testimony of the injured witnesses and legal principles to convict the accused under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and impose a fine.
Issues: Challenge of acquittal under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, reliance on injured witnesses' testimony, consideration of mitigating circumstances for the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the evidentiary value of injured witnesses' testimony and applied legal principles to convict the accused under a lesser offence.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 was allowed, and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 filed by the accused persons was dismissed. The accused were convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine.
Key Points: - The evidentiary value of injured witnesses’ testimony is relied upon to convict under a lesser offense [20000329260015][20000329260026] - The court held that the act must show intention/knowledge to cause death for IPC 307; acquittal under 307/34 was not interfered with, but conviction under 324 for bone-deep injuries was upheld and 307 discharged [20000329260023][20000329260026][20000329260027] - Delay of one day in filing Cr. Appeal was condoned after showing cause [20000329260001][20000329260003] - The trial relied on PW1, PW2, PW5 (injured witnesses) despite their relations; such testimony can be credible if supported by other evidence [20000329260017][20000329260019] - Medical evidence corroborates ocular evidence of injuries; no intent/knowledge to meet 307 criteria shown, but injuries justify 324 conviction [20000329260022][20000329260026] - Accused were convicted under 324 and fined; abatement of Cr. SJ appeal for Letari Ghatwar due to death [20000329260009][20000329260030] - Legal principles from Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Tulshiram Kamble cited regarding injured witnesses’ weight and presence [20000329260025][20000329260016]
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
IA No. 1007 of 2020 Criminal Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 has been filed by Manoj Rajak who is the informant of Bishnugarh PS Case No. 59 of 2006.
2. The registry has reported that there is delay of one day in filing this Criminal Appeal.
3. IA No. 1007 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of one day in preferring this Criminal Appeal.
4. Having been satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant in this Interlocutory Application, the delay of one day in filing this Criminal Appeal is condoned.
5. Accordingly, IA No. 1007 of 2020 is allowed. Cr. Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019
6. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 has been filed by Nirmal Rajak, Sudama Rajak and Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh (now dead) to challenge the judgment of their conviction under sections 323, 341 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded in ST No. 189 of 2013.
7. The informant has filed Cr. Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 to challenge the acquittal of the accused persons under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Mr. Mr. A.K. Rashidi, the learned counsel for the convicts has tendered a copy of the the death certificate of Appellant No. 3, namely, Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh.
9. Taken on record.
10. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 shall abate qua Letari Ghatwar.
11. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Manoj Rajak recorded by the officer-in-charge of Bishnugarh police station, a First Information Report vide Bishnugarh PS Case No. 59 of 2006 was registered under sections 323, 325, 452, 380 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. On 12th May 2016, charges against Nirmal Rajak , Sudama Rajak and Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh were framed for committing the aforesaid offences.
13. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in support of the prosecution case that accused persons attempted to murder Babulal Rajak and caused grievous injuries to PW2 and PW5. The father and the mother of the informant are the injured witnesses who have tendered evidence as PW1 and PW2 and their testimony has been accepted by the trial Judge.
14. As PW5, the informant has stated in the Court that he received a telephonic information on 4th October 2006 that Nirmal Rajak, Sudama Rajak, Shibu Baitha and Letari Singh have trespassed his house, damaged the household articles, assaulted his father and taken away Rs. 2000/-. On receiving this information, the informant came home and found his father in injured condition. In the meantime, the accused persons armed with lathi and danda etc. again came there and started assaulting him and his father which caused bleeding injuries to them and his father became unconscious. The informant has further stated that when his mother intervened she was also beaten by Shanti Devi but, in the meantime, his neighbours rushed there and the accused persons fled away.
15. The testimony of an injured witness lends assurances to the Court that being a victim the witness was present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of the injured witness is sufficient to record conviction of the accused provided his testimony does not suffer from any inherent improbability and it inspires the confidence of the Court.
16. In “State of Maharashtra v. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble” (2007) 14 SCC 627 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
39. Though it is true that it is not necessary to invariably accept the version of the injured witnesses but it is well settled that greater weight has to be given to the testimony of the injured
The evidentiary value of injured witnesses' testimony and the application of legal principles to determine the appropriate offence and punishment for the accused.
The significance of the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the evidence of injured witnesses, and the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence were central to the court's decision.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony, the distinction between minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimony, and the need for careful assessment of witness credibility were central t....
The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The conviction under Section 307 IPC was overturned due to lack of intention to cause death, while convictions under Sections 323, 324, and 341 IPC were upheld.
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
