Petitioner challenged the acquittal of opposite parties 2 to 6 in a trial for intentional causing of death by dangerous weapons. The High Court found no error in the trial court's view that accused acted in private defense during a land dispute.
The revision application against the acquittal order is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 322 of 2003
…...
Mantu Rajwar .... Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
10/16.12.2019 The instant application has been preferred by the petitionerinformant against the judgment dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 3rd , Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1991 whereby the opposite party no. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the learned trial court.
2. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of one Mantu Rajwar that when the informant was ploughing his paddy field alongwith other person, all of a sudden, the opposite parties alongwith accused Md. Ansari, Chottu Babu Ansari, Ali Ansari, Khadab Ansari, Charku Ansari duly armed with deadly weapons had attacked the informant to kill him. Amin Rajwar was assaulted with Tangi by accused Chottu Babu Ansari and Md. Hussain due to which he had received injuries on his hands. It is further alleged that in course of the fight, Adalat Rajwar was also assaulted by Tangi by the accused Md. Hussain Ansari. From F.I.R, it also appears that the informant of this case had sustained injuries from the assault opened by all the accused persons. It is also stated in the F.I.R that the decree regarding the land in question has been obtained by the informant.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed a gross error in not convicting the opposite party no. 2 to 6 only on the basis that the injury report was not exhibited. He further submits that the allegation against the accused persons were that they have injured the informant from blunt portion of the Tangi and the learned trial court has
-2-
committed a gross error in acquitting the opposite party no. 2 to 6 on the simple reason that the informant sustained injuries from blunt portion of tangi and not from sharp cutting edge and finally came to the conclusion that there was no intention to kill the informant. He further submits that the order is bad in law and deserves to be set-side.
4. Per contra the learned APP appearing for the State supports the impugned order.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and after going through the impugned order including the lower court records, it appears that the incident took place due to land dispute. Learned trial court has further observed that the land in question belongs to the accused persons/opposite parties and they were having valid decree of the aforesaid land and the certified copy of preliminary decree of the aforesaid land has been filed and attached with the case record. Para 19 and 20 of the
impugned order is quoted below:
“19. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that due to land dispute occurrence took place and on perusal of the exhibit-C submitted by the defence side. In course of argument it is established that the land belonging to the accused persons so they got decree and for which C.C. preliminary decree has been filed and attached with the case record. Further on careful examination of testimony of Nuni Bala Devi @ Nanu Rajwar (P.W.-6), it is also established that in course of the altercation the accused persons had also received injuries but however how they received injuries, not explained at all by any of the PWs. 20. Keeping this aspect of the case, I am of the view that both parties were indulged in mutual exchange of assault and keeping in notice the exhibit-C which is preliminary decree, passed in favour of accused persons. It appears that accused persons were had in possession of the land in dispute. It is also further apparent from the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as given before the court on oath that the informant came to the one the P.O. i.e. paddy field alongwith near about 10 to 11 persons which would indicate also that they had gone there with all preparation and the same was not at any point was of pious intention. Thus, I find and hold that the informant party were the aggressor and accused persons had acted in their private defence save their to property and persons.”
6. After going through the entire documents and the finding given by the learned trial court, I do not find any error in the judgment and the opposite parties 2 to 6 have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial court.
-3-
“7. Admittedly there were civil and criminal proceedings between both the parties. The facts and circumstances go to show that both sides were armed and two of the accused received gunshot injuries. It is not clear from the records that at what point of time the actual attack by the accused took place. If the accused had already dealt several blows on the deceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of the land some days ago. Therefore even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the deceased and others had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence. In these circumstances, the plea of the accused that they also acted in self-defence cannot altogether be ignored. At any rate their plea also appears to be plausible.”
9. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
RKM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed a gross error in acquitting the accused persons on the ground that injuries were caused by the blunt portion of a weapon implying lack of intention to kill.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khuddu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Khuddu Vs. State of U.P. 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 15 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mantu Rajwar
The State of Jharkhand
Jhapur Mahto
Ashu Mahto
Baker Mahto
Shankar Mahto
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
