Dismissed

Raju Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2018Cr.A(SJ)/10/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging a conviction for affray and voluntary causing hurt. The court found that the testimony of injured witnesses was consistent and trustworthy, and the non-examination of the investigating officer did not prejudice the appellants.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raju Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2007

¶2

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Giridih, in S.T. No. 112 of 1997.

¶3

Raju Mahto,

¶4

Gola Mahto,

¶5

Sukar Mahto,

¶6

Gopal Mahto,

¶7

Dewaki Mahto,

¶8

Chando Mahto,

¶9

Kaila Hazra,

¶10

Atwari Mahto,

¶11

Munshi Mahto, 10. Bundo Mahto … … Appellants.

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand … … ... Respodnent.

¶14

¶15

P R E S E N T

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶17

¶18

For the Appellants: Mr. S.K. Samanto, Advocate. For the State: Addl. P.P.

¶19

¶20

Ananda Sen, J: The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Giridih, in S.T. No. 112 of 1997, by which the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been convicted under sections 148, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been acquitted for the charge under sections 341, 325,307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Further they have been given the benefit in terms of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and they have been released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety each with the condition that they will appear and receive the sentence when called upon during one year as per direction of the Court and in the meantime they will keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

¶21

The prosecution case is based on the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.6, informant, wherein he stated that while he was ploughing his field at Simratari, in which a path was made for bullock cart after cutting ridge. The ridge was blocked by the informant and an objection was raised by the informant. Due to which, there was some hot exchange between the informant party and the accused persons. Thereafter, the informant party were assaulted by the accused persons with sharp cut weapon and hard blunt substance and have injured the informant party.

¶22

-2-

¶23

After investigation charge sheet was submitted and charges were framed for the offence under sections 147,148,341,323/149, 324/149,325/149,307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶24

Altogether nine witnesses were examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. Some documents were also exhibited by the prosecution and the defence-appellants.

¶25

Six witnesses, namely, P.W.1. Babulal Mahto, P.W.2 Bhairav Mahto, P.W.3 Govind Mahto, P.W.4 Baleshwar Mahto, P.W.5 Lutan Mahto and P.W.6 Tipan Mahto are the witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.7 Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh is the retired head clerk of Sadar Hospsital, Giridih, who has proved the injury reports i.e. Exts. 2 to 2/6. P.W.8 Nityanand Tiwari, is a formal witness, who has proved Fardbeyan (Ext. 1/1) and formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). P.W.9 Paryan Yadav, who has proved rent receipts Ext. 4 series and Hukumnama Ext.5.

¶26

Witness nos. 1 to 6, who are the witnesses of the occurrence have consistently supported the fact that a fight had taken place between the informant party and the accused persons/appellants, which resulted in injury.

¶27

Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties had concluded that the appellants are guilty only of the offence under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Investigating officer has not been examined in this case as a result of which the appellants were prejudiced in the trial. He also submits that even Doctor, who had treated the injured, has also not been examined in this case. He submits that there was admitted land dispute between the parties and as the counter case has also been filed by the accused persons against the informant party, in which they have been convicted and later on they have been released on admonition as per provisions of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, thus, it is very difficult to ascertain that which party is aggressor. On these grounds, as per him, these appellant should have been exonerated from the charges levelled against them and they are entitled for acquittal.

¶29

-3-

¶30

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is allegation against all the accused that they have assaulted the informant P.W.5 Lutan Mahto and other injured persons. He submits that P.W. 3 Govind Mahto, P.W.4 Baleshwar Mahto and P.W.5 Lutan Mahto have sustained injury and the evidences of injured witnesses are trustworthy and cannot be brushed aside. He submits that the Court below had rightly given its finding and convicting and sentencing the appellants.

¶31

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the witness nos. 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 namely, P.W.1. Babulal Mahto, P.W.2 Bhairav Mahto, P.w.3 Govind Mahto, P.W.4 Baleshwar Mahto, P.W.5 Lutan Mahto and P.W.6 Tipan Mahto are the injured witnesses, who stated about the occurrence and have stated that they have been assaulted by the appellants. Their evidence is consistent. There is nothing on record to disbelieve them. Though the Doctor and Investigating Officer of this case have not been examined, but injury reports were exhibited and proved by P.W.7 Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh, the retired head-clerk of Sadar Hospital, Giridih, who was acquainted with the hand writing and signature of the then Dr. Surendra Nath, Medical Officer, Jamua. Further non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants as the appellants failed to show the nature of prejudice.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in this appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Giridih, in S.T. No. 112 of 1997.

¶33

In the result, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

(Ananda Sen, J)

¶35

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated 05.09.2018 Sharma/NAFR

Raju Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raju Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarjahan Ansari Alias MD Sarjahan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Singh Alias Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhimsen Mehta Alias Bhimsen Mehata Vs the State of Jharkhand

Teju Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Manjhi Alias Binod Manjhi Alias Kaushal Alias Govind Alias Babuchand Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand