Advocates:
['NITU SINHA', '', 'ARUN KUMAR SINHA', 'S K PANDEY APP']

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 16 of 2007

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2006

passed by learned Session Judge, Pakur in Session Case No. 39 of 2006.

……….

Pradip Kumar Saha

…....

…..

...Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

…

. ….. .. ..Respondent.

------

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

-----

For the Appellant : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Addl. P.P.

------

Ananda Sen, J:

The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 13.12.2006 passed by learned Session Judge, Pakur in

Session Case No. 39 of 2006, by which, he having been found guilty of offence

under Sections 323, 342, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, has been

convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year each under Section 354 and

504 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for six months each under Sections 323

and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and it was directed that all the sentences shall

run concurrently.

2.

The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Putul Devi

(P.W.8) in which, she stated that on 29.10.2005 she-goats of the appellant was

grazing vegetable crops in her field, her mother-in-law drove out the she-goat and

took it to the house of the appellant. In the meantime, an altercation took place

between the appellant and mother-in-law of the informant and the appellant

assaulted her. The appellant came with sickle and tried to give blow on mother in-

law of the informant but she was saved. Thereafter, the appellant and his mother

assaulted the informant and dragged her inside their house and torn her wearing

apparels, like blouse etc. It is also alleged that the appellant snatched the golden

ear rings from the ears of the informant. It is further alleged that the informant was

locked in a room by putting lock outside the room. The police came and rescued

the informant. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a case being Hiranpur

P.S. Case No. 88/05, corresponding to G.R. No. 528/05 was registered for the

offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 342, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3.

The case was investigated by the Investigating officer and the

chargesheet was filed against the the appellant and his mother. The then learned

Magistrate, Pakur took cognizance against the appellant and thereafter the case

was committed to the court of session. The charges were framed against both the

accused, Gouri Devi, the mother of the appellant, for the offence under Section

323 and 504 IPC whereas, under Section 307 IPC against the appellant to which,

they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, altogether ten witnesses

have been examined in this case, which are P.W. 1: Gangamuni Devi, P.W.2:

Ganesh Prasad Saha, P.W.3: Kajal Devi, P.W.4: Anjali Devi, P.W.5: Bilsi Devi,

P.W.6: Prahlad Saha, P.W.7: Sumitra Devi, P.W.8: Putul Devi (the informant of this

case), P.W.9: Ram Hansda (the Investigating Officer) and P.W.10: Dr. Shiv

Shankar Prasad Sinha.

5.

After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the

appellant and his mother were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, they

denied all the charges levelled against them.

6.

Trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidences

available on record, has concluded that the appellant and his mother have been

found guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 354 and 504 IPC and

thereafter has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Accused- Gouri Devi (the mother of the appellant) aged about 55 years, was given

the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and thereafter she was directed to be

released on Probation on execution of a bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of

the like amount each for maintaining peace for a period of one year. But this

appellant was s