Jharkhand High Court
Tikam Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006
(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated
20.09.2006 passed by learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in
st
T.R. Case No. 04 of 2006, arising out of Itkhori P.S. Case No.08 of
1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 25 of 1999, Chatra Jharkhand)
1. Tikam Yadav
2. Horil Yadav
3. Mahendra Yadav ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Arwind Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. 4/27.07.2022 This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2006 passed by learned 1st dditional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in T.R. Case No.04 of 2006, arising out of Itkhori P.S. Case No.08 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 25 of 1999, whereby and where under all the three accused appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and further the appellant No.1 Tikam Yadav has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. and accordingly all the said appellants were directed to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 323 of IPC and the appellant No.1 Tikam Yadav was separately sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half years for the offences punishable under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. and further all the sentences of appellant No.1 Tikam Yadav were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of written statement of the informant Neman Ravidas (P.W.-6) dated 19.01.1999 addressed to Officer in-charge of Itkhori Police Station, where, it has been alleged by the informant that on 17.01.1999, aforesaid accused persons had threatened to kill him for which, he had lodged an information to the Officer-in- Charge of the Itkhori P.S. It has
2. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 further been alleged that on 19-01-199, in the morning at 7.00 AM, aforesaid accused persons variously armed with lathi came and uprooted his crops and when he protested, they assaulted him and his wife (PW - 4). It has further been alleged that they assaulted him on his head by means of lathi causing fracture injury on his head and the accused Tikam Yadav assaulted his wife Sakuntala Devi (PW - 4) on her stomach by means of leg. It has further been alleged that accused persons pushed him (the informant) and his wife into his (informant's) own house and started setting fire on the house, but some villagers intervened and saved from setting fire on his house. It has further been alleged that they used to invariably threaten to kill him and on 19-01-1999 they came at his house in order to kill him.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of Neman Ravidas (PW-6) to this effect to the Officer-In-Charge, Itkhori P.S. on 19.01.1999, Itkhori P.S. Case No. 08 of 1999 was registered against aforesaid accused persons u/Ss. 147, 323 and 427 of the I.P.C. & U/Ss. 3/4 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the S.C./ S.T. Act) and accordingly a formal F.I.R. (Ext-4) was drawn up and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet u/Ss. 147, 323, 427 of the I.P.C. & under sections 3/4 of the SC/ST Act against the accused persons and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Learned Court of Sessions. Thereafter, Learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra framed charges on st 22nd of July, 2002 against all 6 accused persons under sections 147, 427, 323 of the I.P.C. & under clauses (x) and (xi) of sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the S.C./S.T. Act. (as was there before the Amendment Act of 2016). Later on 12.06.2006, the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chatra framed charge against appellant No.1 Tikam Yadav under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C.
3. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006
4. The Learned Trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, assisted by Mr. Arwind Prajapati, learned defence Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that admittedly, it is case of landed property dispute and the learned trial court did not appreciate this fact and not a single independent witness has been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Further, it has also been pointed out by the learned defence counsel that the accused appellants were acquitted for the offence punishable under clauses (x) and (xi) of sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the S.C. /S.T. Act. and the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence adduced , in a proper manner for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. against all the appellants and additionally under sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. against appellant No. 1 under which, they were convicted. It has also been pointed out that the learned trial court, without observing and examining that by whom the crops were grown in the field, as to whether by the accused persons or by the informant people, convicted the appellants. It has also been pointed out that the prosecution has not supported and substantiated the case that the land was belonging to the informant and further there are discrepancies in the place of occurrence , which has also been found from the deposition of I.O. (P.W.-8) and all the injuries found by the doctor are simple in nature and therefore the benefit of doubt goes to the appellant and learned trial court without appreciating these facts passed the impugned judgment of
4. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 conviction and order of sentence, which is bad in law, and is fit to be set-aside.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
7. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the learned defence counsel and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, particularly of the informant Neman Ravidas (PW - 6) and Sakuntla Devi (PW - 4) wife of the informant, who is injured, Sewa Ravidas (PW-3), Pradeep Ravidas ( PW - 5), Yogeshwar Ravidas (PW - 7) supported by the doctor Dr. Tanteshwar Pd. Choudhary ( PW - 1) and Gulzar Rai ( PW - 8), the I.O. of this case. It has further been pointed out by learned APP that the injury report of the injured Sakuntala Devi (PW - 4), which has been proved and marked as Exts. - 1 and 1/1, by which, it is evident that she has been assaulted by the appellants and as categorically deposed by the doctor, who has been examined as PW - 1 during the course of the trial of the case and therefore the case of the prosecution is fully substantiated with respect to the assault u/S. 323 of the I.P.C. and also admitted the case of miscarriage within the meaning of S. 312/511 of the I.P.C., as held by the learned trial court and therefore there is no point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the case including the lower court record.
9. It is found that it is admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties are in a dispute of landed property and it is well established principle of law that the enmity is a double aged weapon and it cuts both the ways as the possibility of false implication as well as the possibility of committing offence are
5. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 imminent and in this background this Court proceeds to examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
10. In order to substantiate the charges made out against these appellants, altogether eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, who are Dr. Tanteshwar Pd. Choudhary (PW - 1), Rajdeo Ravidas (PW - 2), Sewa Ravidas (PW - 3- son of the informant), Sakuntala Devi (PW - 4 -wife of the informant), Pradeep Ravidas(PW - 5 -son of the informant) , Neman Ravidas (PW - 6-informant) and Yogeshwar Ravidas (PW - 7- son of the informant) and Gulzar Rai ( PW - 8), the I.O in this case.
11. PW. 6- Neman Ravidas is the informant, has fully supported the case as set-out in his written report in the F.I.R., which has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. He categorically deposed that the accused appellants had come to the place of occurrence and the appellant Tikam Yadav had assaulted his wife Sakuntla Devi (PW -
4) in her stomach by means of leg, thereby causing miscarriage of three months pregnancy and blood started oozing out. He further deposed in para 3 that the accused Horil and Mahendra Yadav started assaulting by means of lathi on his head, back and knee. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellants, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of this witness, who has squarely corroborated his version as disclosed in the FIR, with respect to the assault upon himself and his wife by these accused appellants.
12. The victim PW.4- Sakuntala Devi is the wife of the informant (PW - 6). In her deposition, she has also supported the prosecution story with respect to the occurrence and the evidences adduced and stated that accused appellants Tikam Yadav, Horil Yadav and Mahendra Yadav had come to the place of occurrence, i.e. agriculture field and started uprooting the mustered crops from the agricultural land and when the same was protested by the informant including this witness, the accused Tikam Yadav caught hold her and assaulted her on stomach by means of leg causing
6. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 miscarriage of three months pregnancy and blood started oozing out from her urethral opening. She further deposed that the accused appellants had assaulted her husband by lathi. Thus, from the deposition of this witness, it is found that the assault has been caused by the accused appellants upon the victim (PW .6- informant) and the accused Tikam Yadav assaulted her on stomach causing miscarriage of three months pregnancy Thus, from the statement of Sakuntala Devi (P.W. 6), it can safely be concluded that the offences punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. for causing miscarriage have been substantiated and established.
13. Further it is found that Sewa Ravidas (P.W.-3) and Pradeep Ravidas (P.W.-5) and Yogeshwar Ravidas (P.W.-7) are the sons of the informant and they claimed themselves to be the eyewitnesses. From their testimonies, it is found that they have consistently and explicitly deposed that the accused appellant Tikam Yadav along with other two accused appellants had assaulted her mother by leg and Horil Yadav and Mahendra Yadav had assaulted his father and in the cross-examination conducted by the defence, no discrepancies have been found and it is found that the informant (P.W.-6) and his wife Sakuntla Devi (P.W.-4) had sustained injuries upon assault by these appellants.
14. P.W. 2- Rajdeo Ravidas is a hearsay witness and he has not seen the occurrence and he heard that there had been a quarrel between the accused appellants Tikam Yadav, Horil Yadav and Mahendra Yadav and informant people and appellants accused assaulted the informant (P.W. - 6) and his wife (P.W. - 4) and therefore, this witness has also supported the factum of assault caused by the accused appellants to the victim including P.W. - 4 and P.W. - 6.
15. Further P.W. 1 - Dr. Tanteshwar Pd. Choudhary, the Doctor, who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution has fully supported the alleged assault upon the informant (P.W.-6) and also
7. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 supported the alleged attempt to cause miscarriage of Sakuntala Devi (P.W.-4) and, therefore, the charges for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. against all accused appellants and the charge for the offence of causing attempt of miscarriage under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. against the appellant Tikam Yadav is corroborated. This witness (P.W. - 1) deposed that as on 19.01.1999, he was posted as Medical Officer in P.H.C., Itkhori and he had examined Sakuntla Devi (P.W. - 4), wife of the informant Neman Ravidas P.W.6 and found the following injuries on her person, which are as follows:-
"(i) Bleeding from vagina and on P/V examination with the help of LHV he found blood stained liquid coming out and pain in lower abdomen,
(ii) Abraison mark on her right wrist joint, and
(iii) Pain and tenderness on her chest.
He (the Doctor) has stated that all the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance and were caused within 12 hours prior to the examination of the injuries and injury No. 2 & 3 were simple in nature and opinion of injury No.1 was kept reserved and the patient was kept under observation for threatened abortion, and he proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 1. He further deposed that he later on submitted final report in respect of injury No.1 marked Exhibit 1/1. On careful examination of Ext.1/1, it is obvious that the patient was kept under observation for 10 days and bleeding and liquid stopped after three days of treatment and now patient is symptom free and duration of her pregnancy was about 10 weeks and there is no any abnormality in general condition of her health and he described the nature of injury No.1 to be simple in nature and as such it is found that the learned trial court has rightly found that it was a case of attempt to cause miscarriage within the meaning of section 312 of the I.P.C. He further deposed that he also examined Neman Ravidas (the informant) and found injury on his person namely:-
8. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 i. Lacerated wound on scalp- 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4"
deep, with bleeding from the wound, ii. Bruise on right upper arm, iii. Pain and tenderness on back, and iv. Abraison mark on left hand wrist joint.
He stated that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance within 12 hours prior to the examination of the injuries and were simple in nature and he proved the injury report which is marked as Exhibit - 2.
Thus, the Doctor (P.W.-1) fully corroborated and supported the evidences of P.W. - 3 to 7 with respect to the injury inflicted by the accused appellants on the person of the injured P.W.6. The Doctor examined both the injured persons P.W.6 and P.W.4 on 19.01.1999 and found that injury was inflicted within 12 hours prior to the examination of the injuries and all witnesses namely P.W. - 3 to 7 being the eyewitnesses consistently stated in their depositions that the occurrence took place at 7.00 AM in the morning of 19-01-1999.
It is manifest from the testimonies of the witnesses viz. P.W.s 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, that the learned trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the evidences and rightly found that the charges levelled against them are substantiated under Sections 323 against all the appellants and also under 312/511 of the I.P.C. against the appellant No.1 Tikam Yadav in additrion to under Sections 323 of the I.P.C.
16. PW - 8 is the I.O. in this case and he had investigated the place of occurrence and after investigation, submitted the charge- sheet. This witness has proved the F.I.R., which has been marked as Ext. - 4. He had inspected the place of occurrence and described the boundaries and the time, date and place of occurrence and it has been duly proved and no discrepancies as pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has been found.
9. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006
17. Recapitulating the aforesaid depositions, it is well founded that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and convicted all the accused appellants for the offences punishable under sections 323 of the I.P.C. and further, convicted one of the appellants namely Tikam Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. in addition to offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.
18. Accordingly, this Court upholds the conviction of all the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and further one of the accused appellants namely Tikam Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 312/511 of the I.P.C. in addition to offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
19. On the point of sentence, learned defence counsel has pointed out that over a period of time, all the appellants have become very old and in view of the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1999 and there is nothing on record to show that there is any criminal history of any one of the accused appellants. Further, it has also been pointed out that admittedly, there is a dispute of landed property between both of the parties and they have been in the litigating terms and therefore it is urged on behalf of the accused appellants that let there a lenient view be taken.
20. In view of the submissions presented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellants, it is found that this occurrence is of the year 1999 and the appellants had been suffering with the misery and trauma of criminal prosecution for a long period of time, i.e., for more than 22 years and there is nothing on record to show that any one of the accused appellants is having any criminal antecedent and hence purpose of justice would be served if they are awarded with the sentence of fine only instead of awarding further sentence of imprisonment.
21. In the result the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of period already undergone by them and further a sentence
10. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 of fine to a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) collectively against all the appellants under their respective counts jointly by way of compensation in order to give to victim Sakuntla Devi (P.W.-4) by setting aside the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against all the appellants in this case.
22. Since all the appellants are on bail, they are provided a time of three months to deposit the awarded fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) from today in order to give it to the victim Sakuntla Devi (P.W.-4). In case of default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year under their respective counts and the appellant no.1 Tikam Yadav jointly under both the counts.
23. The accused appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount in through the Nazarath of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment they deposit the fine amount, they (appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of said fine amount and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds accordingly.
24. The learned trial court shall ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period time and after depositing of the fine amount, the notice shall be given to the victim Sakuntla Devi (P.W.- 4) and after her appearance, the amount shall be disbursed to her and in case, if P.W. - 4 Sakuntla Devi is not found or is traceless or her whereabouts is not known, then in such case, the said amount of fine of Rupees five thousand only be paid to her kith and kin or her near/close relative, as the learned trial court may deem fit and proper.
25. The learned trial court is further directed to ensure that the said fine amount, which is directed to be paid by way of compensation by this Court, is deposited within the stipulated period of time, and if the same is not deposited by the accused appellants within the stipulated period of time, they will serve the sentence of one year simple imprisonment in case of default of
11. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1565 of 2006 payment of fine so awarded, by taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law.
26. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as above.
27. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below with a copy of this judgement for its compliance and necessary.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 27.07.2022/NAFR R.Kumar/-