Partly allowed

Prem Nath Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Oct 2018Cr.A(SJ)/811/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction for hurt. High Court altered conviction of one appellant from grievous hurt to simple hurt due to medical evidence. Acquitted second appellant for lack of role in assault. Modified sentences awarded.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of appellant 1 altered from Section 325 to 323 IPC; appellant 2 acquitted; sentences modified.

Prem Nath Sahu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 811 of 2003

¶4

(Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 9.5.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Hazaribag in connection with S.T. Case No. 254 of 1997 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case no. 107 of 1996, G.R. no. 986 of 1996)

¶5

¶6

Prem Nath Sahu S/o Raj Kumar Sahu

¶7

Pradeep Sahu S/o Raj Kumar Sahu

¶8

Both residents of village- Mahua tola Bhadani Nagar, P.S. Patratu (Bhadaninagar) District Hazaribagh,Jharkhand

¶9

…… Appellants -VersusThe State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent ------

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.

¶12

¶13

Date: 1^st October,2018 RATNAKER BHENGRA,J

¶14

1 . This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.5.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. Case No. 254 of 1997 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case no. 107 of 1996, G.R. no. 986 of 1996 whereby and whereunder appellant no.1 Prem Nath Sahu was convicted u/s 325 IPC and appellant no.2 Pradeep Sahu was convicted u/s 323 IPC. Appellant No.1 Prem Nath Sahu was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 325 IPC and appellant no.2 Pradeep Sahu was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months u/s 323 IPC.

¶15

2 . The prosecution case in brief as per the written report of the informant Rajendra Kumar Mahto PW1 is that on 17.6.1996 at about 5 p.m. the accused Prem Nath Sahu had called the informant to his house for taking money which was taken from him on loan. When he reached at the house of the accused Prem Nath Sahu to take money then Prem Nath Sahu along with his brother Pradeep Sahu and his grand father Gunja Sahu started assaulting him with lathi and rod with an intention to kill him as a result he sustained injury on his head and fell down. It has been further alleged that when the informant fell down then the accused Prem

¶16

¶17

Nath Sahu assaulted the informant with sword on his neck which he escaped. Thereafter, informant ran towards market and police station and saved his life.

¶18

3 . On the basis of the written report of the informant police registered a case against accused persons. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 323,324,307 and 406/34 IPC against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. One of the accused namely Gunja Sahu died before the commencement of trial as such proceeding against him was stopped. Charges were framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial was held, witnesses were examined and at the conclusion of trial accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

¶19

4. Prosecution examined altogether six witnesses to prove its case. PW.1 Rajendra Kumar Mahto is the informant of this case PW-2 Arjun Bedia, PW-3 Jay Prakash Singh, PW-4 Raj Kumar, PW-5 Dr.Kartik Prasad Singh and PW-6 is Moti Ram.

¶20

5. PW-1 Rajendra Kumar Mahto is the informant of this case. He stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence on 17.6.1996 at about 5 p.m. Prem Nath Sahu had called him at his house for taking money. When he reached at his house the accused Prem Nath Sahu was armed with rod and lathi. He further stated that Prem Nath Sahu assaulted with rod on his head and the other persons persons were provocating him to kill. He fell down there then accused Prem Nath Sahu gave sword below on him which he managed to escape and ran away raising alarm. Informant proved his written report which was marked as Ext.1. In his cross-examination informant stated that he had not sustained any injury with sword. He also stated that the accused had taken loan of Rs. 2,000/from him but he had no any document to show that the loan was given to him.

¶21

6. P.W.-5 Dr.Kartik Prasad Singh had examined the injured informant Rajendra Kumar Mahto and found the following injuries on his person:-

¶22

(i) cut on scalp medial region 2”x1/8”x1/4”

¶23

(ii) Bruises on the back and right arm parietal aspect 2”x1”

¶24

Doctor stated that injury no.1 was grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury no.2 was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Doctor proved the injury report of the informant which was marked as Ext. 2.

¶25

¶26

7 . P.W.-2 Arjun Bedia stated in his evidence that he reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw Prem Nath assaulting the informant with stick on his head. Accused Pradeep Sahu and Gunja Sahu were shouting to kill.

¶27

8 . P.W.-3 Jay Prakash Singh stated that on the date of occurrence he was in market on hearing hulla he reached the house of Prem Nath Sahu and there Prem Nath Sahu was assaulting the informant with stick on his head and blood was oozing out. He further stated that at the place of occurrence informant’s brother and grandfather were also present who were shouting to assault. In his cross-examination PW-3 stated that he did not see the assault on the head. When he reached the place of occurrence he saw Rajendra fallen and in his presence he fled away. PW3 further stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw stick in the hand of accused Prem Nath.

¶28

9. PW-4 Raj Kumar stated that he saw Rajendra Kumar Mahto in the pool of blood falling on the ground. Then Rajendra stood up and rushed towards police station. This witness in his cross-examination stated that he did not see the occurrence of assault from his own eyes.

¶29

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS :

¶30

10 . Learned counsel for the appellants firstly referred to the evidence of PW-1 informant, Rajendra Kumar Mahto and pointed out from his deposition that main allegation is against Prem Nath Sahu who assaulted the informant by lathi and rod and two other accused persons were only shouting and therefore, no role had been played by them. He has further pointed out that it has been revealed in the evidence of PW-1 that assault was also made with sword but no injury to that effect had been indicated. In his cross-examination informant deposed that three accused persons had assaulted him is clearly a development because it is contrary to the deposition given in his examination in chief wherein informant said that Prem Nath Sahu assaulted him with lathi and rod and remaining other two accused persons were shouting with intention to kill. Learned counsel further referring to informant’s cross-examination submitted that he had deposed that accused Pradeep Sahu assaulted with lathi but he does not remember on which part of his body he sustained injuries. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per cross-examination of this witness, at the time of assault the informant was alone meaning thereby no other person had seen the alleged assault.

¶31

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-2 is not

¶32

¶33

an eye witness to the occurrence because PW-2 had deposed in his cross examination that when he reached at the place of occurrence he had seen the informant in injured condition. This witness also stated in his evidence that Pradeep Sahu and Gunja Sahu were only shouting to assault. Referring to the evidence of PW-3 learned counsel submitted that he is a hearsay witness as he had not seen the assault. This witness on hearing alarm went to the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he said that when he reached the place of occurrence he did not see any assault taking place. Referring to the deposition of PW-4 Raj Kumar learned counsel submitted that this witness is also a hearsay witness as in his cross-examination he said that he did not see the occurrence with his own eyes and hence he is not any eye witness to the occurrence.

¶34

12 . Learned counsel for the appellant further referring to the deposition of doctor PW-5 pointed out that the evidence of doctor taken along with evidence of the other witnesses and also evidences of the informant makes it ample clear that no weapon like sword had been used during assault because no such injury had been found by the doctor which can be caused by sword and hence conviction of the appellant no.1 u/s 325 IPC cannot sustain.

¶35

13. Lastly learned counsel for the appellant without admitting the guilt of the appellant submitted that in case of conviction this court may consider that the offence is of the year 1996 and 22 years have passed and appellants have faced rigours and vigours of trial and therefore, they have been sufficiently punished. There is no antecedent against the appellants and therefore most lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence.

¶36

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE :

¶37

14. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has submitted that from the evidence of PW-1 the injured informant, itself it is apparent that informant had categorically stated about the assault on him by appellant no.1 and that he had assaulted with rod. From his evidence it also appears that other two accused persons were instigating and therefore injury sustained by the informant is sufficiently explained. Counsel further submitted that PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that he had sustained two injuries on his head and hand and both were caused by Prem Nath Sahu for which he was also treated at hospital.

¶38

15 . Learned counsel for the State further referred to the deposition of doctor PW-5 and pointed out that from the medical report Ext. 2 of doctor it appears that injured PW-1 had sustained two injuries: one on his head

¶39

¶40

which was cut on the scalp in the medial region and the second injury was in the nature of bruises on the right arm and even though the appellant claim that injuries are not very serious in nature is not acceptable. The doctor indicted that injury no.1 was grievous and caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury no.2 was simple and caused by hard and blunt substance.

¶41

16. Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of other witnesses PW-2,3 and 4 cannot be totally discarded and even though they are not eye witnesses but they have deposed that immediately they were on the place of occurrence and they had seen the informant in injured condition and fleeing away from the place of occurrence in injured condition. Therefore the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below needs to be sustained and upheld.

¶42

FINDINGS

¶43

17 . Having gone through the evidences, the records of the case and having heard both counsels I find from the evidences that the main assailant in this case is appellant no.1 Prem Nath Sahu. As per the deposition of the informant PW-1 accused Prem Nath Sahu had assaulted the informant with rod on his head and this is supported by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 though PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 did not see the occurrence but all have unequivocally deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence they saw the informant Rajendra Kumar Mahto in injured condition. Further ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and informant PW-1 is corroborated by injury report Ext. 2 of doctor PW-4. Doctor had found cut injury on the scalp of medial region 2”x1/8”x1/4” and bruises on back and right arm. Doctor had found injury no.1 as grievous in nature and injury no.2 simple in nature, however, counsel for the appellants rightly pointed out that seeing the nature of injured it does not fall u/s 320 IPC and as such the nature of injury as indicated by the doctor to be grievous is doubtful. Hence, the conviction of the appellant no.1 u/s 325 of IPC is altered to one u/s Section 323 of IPC.

¶44

18 . Regarding, conviction of the appellant no. 2 Pradeep Sahu, I find from the examination-in-chief of the informant that appellant no.2 was shouting to kill the informant. Further PW-2 at para 2, PW-3 at para 1, and PW-4 at para 2 of their depositions have stated that accused Pradeep Sahu was only shouting to assault the informant. So, there is consistent evidence that appellant No.2, namely, Pradeep Sahu was not indulged in any assault. Hence, appellant no. 2 did not assault the informant and

¶45

¶46

hence he is acquitted of the charge u/s 323 of IPC.

¶47

19 . In the result conviction of the appellant no.1 Prem Nath Sahu u/s 325 of IPC and its accompanying sentence passed in the impugned order by the learned court below cannot sustain and is set aside and his conviction is altered to Section 323 of IPC. The conviction of the appellant no.2 Pradeep Sahu u/s 323 of the IPC is set aside and he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.

¶48

20 . Regarding sentencing considering the mitigating circumstances as pleaded by the learned counsel, appellant no.1 Prem Nath Sahu is sentenced to undergo modified sentence for two months S.I with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid to the injured informant Rajendra Kumar Mahto and in default of payment of compensation amount he will undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Bail bond of appellant no.1 Prem Nath Sahu is cancelled and learned court below is directed to take steps to serve the modified sentence passed by this Court against the appellant no.1.

¶49

21. Instant appeal is dismissed with alteration in conviction and modification in respect of appellant no.1 and appeal is allowed in respect of appellant no.2.

¶50

 (RATNAKER BHENGRA,J)

¶51

Jharkhand High Court,Ranchi
Dated:1.10.2018
NAFR/KNR

Prem Nath Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Charan Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Raju Godsera Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saiket Kuila Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanatan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Sarju Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Panchu Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand