The High Court upheld the conviction of appellants under IPC Sections 324 and 34 for assaulting villagers with weapons. The court modified the sentence, restricting it to the period already undergone and ordering the release of bailors from liability.
Sentence restricted to period already undergone; bailors set at liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Cr. A. No. 1056 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 14.7.2003 and order of sentence dated 15.7.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Gumla in S.T. No. 216/97]
Both are sons of Late Gangu Oraon.
All are residents of village Kuraj, Police Station- Ghaghra, DistrictGumla. …. Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
---
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
J U D G M E N T
By Court : The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.7.2003 and order of sentence dated 15.7.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Gumla in S.T. No. 216/97, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been found guilty for an offence under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine a sum of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the written report dated 30.4.96 of Jagatpal Oraon is that he is resident of village Kura P.S- Ghaghra, Distt.Gumla. On 29.4.96 they were sleeping. At around 1.00 a.m. on the sound of the door being forced open his daughter Manju Devi went there and saw Raju Oraon, Paju Oraon both holding Tangi and rod and Ishwar Oraon holding Farsa and standing there. They started abusing her and asked
2
about him. They were also saying that your father being Mukhiya, conducts Panchayati. We will kill him and his family. His daughter moved aside then they entered the house. They called him, all the while abusing. He came out on this commotion. They started abusing him and beating him with fist. Ishwar Oraon assaulted him with the butt of Farsa to his left arm. He was also assaulted on his left eye. When Manju Devi tried to save then they caught hold of her and dragged her. The accused Raju Oraon assaulted on her head with Tangi with intention to kill. Her head fractured. She was injured and fell down. On alarm neighbours came then the accused fled away. The cause behind the occurrence is that he is Mukhiya of the village and decided a matter pertaining to them and due to which the accused were angry. Due to night, he could not come to the police station earlier. 3. On the basis of written report dated 30.4.96 of Jagatpal Oraon, Ghaghra PS Case No. 34/96 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. 4. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 216/97. 5. Charge was framed against appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.
3
amongst them were Kuwar, Mahadeo and Sarpanch. Subsequently, they were taken to hospital. She further deposed that she identified the accused by their voice and she had informed the police regarding the assault. She has further deposed in cross examination that during fight, she was in the room and that when she came out of fear, her father and sister told her about who assaulted. On this, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that PW-1 is not the eye witness.
4
she was treated for two months. She has further deposed that there was dispute regarding distribution of wood. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is variation in the injury caused in eye. Moreover, learned counsel has submitted that she has deposed that she spent two months in hospital but there is no document to prove that she had spent two months in hospital and that too for simple injury. Learned counsel has submitted that there was one blow on the head, so there was no intention to make out deliberate, repeated and vicious attack on the victims. 11. PW-5 is Doctor Benedick Minz. He has deposed that the age of the injuries is about six hours and he has deposed that he had examined Manju Devi and found wound on her forehead caused by sharp cutting weapon. She was referred to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He has further deposed that on the same day, he also examined Jagatpal Oraon and found injury such as abrasion on his left eye brow and the injury possibly being caused by hard and blunt substance which was simple in nature. Doctor has said that injury found on the person of Manju Devi can be caused by falling on rock and that on Jagatpal Oraon can be caused by falling in intoxicated state. Learned counsel for the appellants has said that therefore injuries are not caused by any hard and blunt substance.
“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
5
6
restricted to the period already undergone. Their bailors are set at liberty from their liability of bail bonds.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, The 3rd August, 2016, SB/ AFR-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to uphold the conviction under Sections 324 and 34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
Whether the appellants are entitled to a modified sentence considering the age of the case and time spent in custody.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ishwar Pal Bhagat
Raju Oraon
Paju Oraon
The State of Jharkhand
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
