Jharkhand High Court
Nabad Lal Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2005 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 5th, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2004/S.T.R. No. 19/2004, arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 223 of 2003, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand.)
1. Nabad Lal Pradhan
2. Bhavesh Pradhan ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sahay, Advocate Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
-------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR Order No. 04: Dated: 20th July, 2022
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dat- ed 24.05.2005 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2004/S.T.R. No. 19/2004, arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2003, cor- responding to G.R. Case No. 223 of 2003 West Singhbhum, Chaiba- sa, Jharkhand whereby and where under the accused appellant No. 1 Nabad Lal Pradhan has been convicted under sections 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for Simple Imprisonment for two years and further both the appellants were convicted u/s 325 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years. It was further directed that the both the sentences of the appellant No.1 Nabad Lal Pradhan would run concurrently.
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005
2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the written state- ment of P.W. 1 Sadananad Pradhan of village Joro P.S. Chakra- dharpur addressed to the Officer-In-charge, Cakradharpur Police station. Briefly stating the allegations as set out in the written appli- cation by the informant are as under:-
On 27.09.2003 the victim (P.W.4) was at home in the even- ing while informant was absent. Informant further stated that Nobad Lal Pradhan teased (cher-char) the victim at 8 P.M. as told by the victim when informant returned. In- formant further stated that on 28.09.20003 in the morning, he asked Nobad Lal Pradhan why did he tease his wife yesterday? At this Nobad Lal Pradhan along with his son Bhavesh pradhan started beating informant with stick and lathi by which the head of informant got injured and blood started oozing from injury, informant also received injury on hand.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint officer-in-charge Chakradharpur P.S. registered as P.S. Case No. 96 of 2003 dated 28.09.2003 u/s 354, 341, 325/34 of IPC. After investigation police filed charge sheet u/s 354/341/323/325/34 of IPC against the above named two accused persons vide C.S. No. 125 of 2003 dated 19.10.2003 in the court of S.D.J.M., Porahat. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 15.12.2003 took cognizance of offence punishable u/s 354, 341, 325, 307 r/w 34 of IPC after taking into consideration the injury report of informant. Offence u/s 307 of IPC being triable by the court of Sessions, therefore, learned S.D.J.M. (P) committed the case to the court of Sessions vide order dated 16.02.2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-V, West Singhbhum has framed charge on 26 March 2004 under sections 354, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of IPC. The learned trial court after con-
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 ducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. P.K. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellants
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned trial court has committed error in the appreciation of the evidences and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as well as on fact. It has further been submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the right perspective and no offence is made out u/s 354 of IPC has been proved against the appellant no. 1 because of discrepancy found in the deposition of the informant P.W. 1- Sadanand Pradhan and the victim P.W. 4 in the light of the fact that P.W. 1 had stated that occurrence took place at 8 p.m. in the evening while the victim P.W. 4 stated that the offence had taken place in the evening 4 pm. It has also been pointed out that both the parties are neighbour to each other and the incident took place when the victim had gone outside the home to throw vegetable water in the premises of the appellant no. 1 who caught hold her hand to stop her from throwing dirty water in his premises and as such no offence is made out u/s 354 of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that she has narrated about the use of criminal force upon her, but, the same has not been stated before the Officer-In-charge in the FIR and this is a vital discrepancy in the allegation as disclosed in the deposition of the victim P.W. 4., therefore, the charge u/s 354 of IPC has not been proved and the benefits of doubt be given to the appellant no. 1 for 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 the offence. It has further been pointed out that the appellants are father and son and the appellant No. 1 Nabad Lal Pradhan was about 72 years old at the time of the occurrence and by efflux of time he has become very old and the appellant No. 2 Bhavesh Pradhan was about 33 years old at the time of the occurrence and also urged on behalf of the appellants that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence also, if any.
Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P. for the State
6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the victim P.W. 4 categorically supported the case of the prosecution and since the informant was husband of the victim and, therefore, it is not supposed to disclose the entire allegation of outraging the modesty of the P.W. 4 in the FIR which she has disclosed before the learned trial court in her testimony at the time of the trial and, therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the defence that there is a discrepancy in the FIR with respect to the allegation is not tenable because the FIR is not said to be an encyclopedia of the entire occurrence when the present case was instituted by the husband not by the victim P.W. 4 herself and, therefore, it is submitted that in the light of the categorical deposition of the informant and victim P.W. 4, this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal and Findings
7. Having heard the parties perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court Record.
8. In order to substantiate, the charges levelled against both the appellants the prosecution has been able to examine altogether eight witnesses:-
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 P.W.-1 Sadanand Pradhan, the informant P.W.-2 Sainik Pradhan P.W.-3 Amar Bilas Pradhan P.W.-4 - Sankhini Devi-victim P.W.-5 Kursi Pradhan P.W.-6 Dunu Pradhan P.W.-7 Dr. P. Kujur and P.W.-8 Dr. Lalit Minj Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has adduced the following documents in evidence : Ext. 1- Written report, basis of FIR in the pen and signature of informant P.W. 1., Ext. - 2 injury report of Sadanand Pradhan prepared by Dr. P.Kujur, Ext.-3 injury report of Sadanand Pradhan prepared by Dr. Lalit Minj.
9. P.W. 1 Sadanand Pradhan is the informant of the case who is the husband of the victim. He has supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated that the victim told him about the occurrence that the appellant no. 1 had teased her while she had gone to throw the vegetables water outside the house. This witness has also stated that the appellant no. 2 had assaulted him by a weapon- piece of stick, by which the injury has caused upon him (the informant) and thus this witness P.W. 1 has supported the case of the prosecution and proved the written application of the FIR which has been marked as Ext.1. In cross examination, it is found that no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the version of this prosecution witness.
10. P.W. 2 Sainik Pradhan is the brother of P.W. 1 and he had stated that he had seen the accused persons beating the informant and thereafter they ran away. He further stated that the head of the informant was injured.
11. P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 have been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005
12. P.W. - 4 Sankhini Devi, is the victim who is the wife of the informant and has been examined as P.W. 4 who in her examination-in-chief has categorically stated that on 27.09.2003 the occurrence had taken place while she has gone outside the house to throw the vegetable water when the appellant no. 1 had caught her. She had categorically stated in her deposition about the use of criminal force and thereby she resisted by twisting his (the appellant no. 1) private parts in her private defence then he left her. She further stated that on the next day there had been exchange of some hot words between her husband (informant) and the appellant no. 1. In para 10 she had stated that she had not seen occurrence of beating to her husband (informant) rather she had seen running them away after beating.
13. P.W. 7 Dr. P. Kujur had examined the P.W. 1, the husband of the victim (the informant) and found the following injuries. :
i. 3" lacerated wound of the right parietal region on head ii. On left forearm 2"x2"
iii. Two lacerated wounds of 3" long on the left parietal region of the head.
The doctor opined that X-ray shows fracture of the lower end of the radius, and further opined that the injury no. ii. is grievous in nature while injury nos. i & iii are simple in nature and he proved the injury report of informant Sadanand Pradhan which was marked as Ext. 2.
14. P.W. 8 Dr. Lalit Minj was the Doctor who examined P.W. 1 Sadanand Pradhan and stated that he got treatment under him and he supported the injury which was said to be inflicted upon his head. He has also proved injury report which has been marked as Ext. 3. He stated that the patient sustained the fracture on left lower radius which is grievous in nature.
15. Recapitulating the testimonies of the witnesses examined on 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 behalf of the prosecution and also taking into consideration the injury reports as evaluated in foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution particularly P.W. 1 (informant and injured) who was the victim of the assault, inflicted by both the appellants and P.W. 4 who was sexually harassed by the appellant no. 1 within the meaning of section 354 of IPC and both the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and appellant No. 1 Nabad Lal Pradhan in addition to the above was also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC.
16. The discrepancy found in the time of the occurrence between the version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 did not demolish the case of the prosecution to the fact that there was harassment by holding the hand of the victim by the appellant no. 1 in order to attract the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC and there is use of criminal force to outrage the modesty and the victim P.W.4 rescued herself by twisting the testicles of appellant no.1 , therefore, the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant no. 1 guilty for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC. Further, the depositions of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 who are the doctors and the injury reports Exts. 2 and 3 have substantiated the charges of inflicting injuries upon the P.W. 1 which attracted the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and the same has also been substantiated.
17. In this view of the matter, this Court upholds the conviction against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 of IPC and further the appellant no. 1 is also convicted u/s 354 of IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the appellant no. 2 was about 33 years of age at the time of occurrence and over a period of time he has become around 52 years old and appellant No. 1 was about 73 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 years of age at the time of occurrence and over a period of time he has become more old. Further, it has come into evidence that both the parties are neighbour of each other and the appellants are suffering from the trauma and misery of the criminal trial, so instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to both the appellants it would be just and appropriate to sentence them for the period already under gone by them and further to impose fine by way of compensation.
18. Accordingly, this Court imposes sentence of imprisonment to both the appellants for the period of imprisonment already undergone by them under all the counts and further imposes sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) collectively under all the counts by way of compensation to be paid to the victim P.W. 1 Sadanand Pradahan.
19. Since, the appellants are on bail and, therefore, a time period of three months is given to the appellants from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to P.W. 1 through the Nazarath of the concerned Civil Court.
20. It is further directed that in case of default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give it to P.W. 1 as awarded by this Court, each of the appellants will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated period of time, they will serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded.
21. At the moment the appellants deposit the fine amount they shall be released forthwith and they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly. The learned court below is also 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 691 of 2005 directed that on deposit of the said fine amount by the appellants, the notice shall be sent to the victim/informant (PW-1) and on his appearance the said fine amount, so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him. In case if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not found at the given address, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim/informant (PW-1) as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as above.
23. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the Lower Court Records to do needful and compliance in this regard.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 20.07.2022/NAFR MM/-