Jharkhand High Court
Pesh Imam Qureshi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR553(JHR)]
Author: D.P. Singh
Bench: D.P. Singh
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.2002 passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 147 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant stand convicted under Section 295A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years Under Section 295A and 1 year for Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently;
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 27.2.1997 the informant Lakhan Choudhary along with other witnesses was going to Daltonganj from their village Semar P.S. Chainpur when they saw the appellant carrying beef in a cloth on his bicycle and blood falling on the road. As further stated when they asked the appellant why he was carrying the beef without taking precaution that blood may not fall, the appellant became angry. The informant asserted that as religious places lie by the side of the road they had asked the appellant to take precaution. However the appellant getting angry threatened them that they will be taught a lesson. As per prosecution version by 9.30 a.m. the appellant along with 5-6 others named in the FIR arrived in village on a Jeep and started assaulting the villagers indiscriminately. They further tried to throw Kail Choudhary in a well. However the villagers assembled and the appellant and others fled away. During this occurrence many villagers received injuries and one of them Bacchu Choudhary was brought to Sahpur Chowk and left after being assaulted and relived of Rs. 150 from his pocked.
3. The informant gave this statement to Chainpur police at 10.30 a.m. on the basis of which Chainpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1997 dated 27.2.1997 under various sections including Section 295A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the four named persons. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet. The trial of the appellant along with 11 others was committed to the court of sessions where they were charged for offences under Section 341, 342, 379, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was separately charged under Section 295A/504 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. However the learned trial court after examining the witnesses acquitted all other accused from the charges but found and held the appellant guilty under Section 295A/504 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has committed mistake by accepting the prosecution case that he was carrying beef with intention to hurt the feelings of Hindues and has insulted the informant and others. It is also asserted that in view of the acquittal of other accused persons the prosecution case has not been believed by the trial court. However the conviction of the appellant in spite of witnesses turning hostile and contradicting each other does not deserve to be confirmed. Sri. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the prosecution version is taken to be true the appellant has not acted in any manner to hurt the villagers feelings and to cause insult to the informant and others.
5. I have carefully gone through the materials on record along with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses out of which P.W. 9 is formal witness proving the FIR written by one Rajendra Singh S.I. Chainpur police station. P.W. 8 is doctor who has examined Rajendra Choudhary and Hira Choudhary as well as Kail Choudhary on 27.2.1997 at Chainpur Primary Health Centre to find on them some injuries caused by hard and blunt substance without mentioning any of them as grievous. P.W. 3 Kail Choudhary, P.W. 4 Nandlal Kahar, P.W. 5 Rajendra Choudhary, P.W. 6 Hira Choudhary, P.W. 7 Lalo Choudhary though admitting that some marpit has taken place did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W. 1 the informant Lakhan Choudhary and P.W. 2 Lalji Choudhary have supported the prosecution case that the appellant was carrying beef and they objected as the blood was falling on the road because it may hurt the sentiments of Hindues. However during cross examination they have named only the appellant as the person having taken part in subsequent assault etc. They have not identified anyone else. They are, therefore, not witnesses of the occurrence except that the appellant was carrying beef. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if this versions is accepted carrying beef on his bicycle by the appellant did not amount to any offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned Counsel, it was informant and others who started the dispute and the appellant has nothing to do with the subsequent event. Therefore there is no offence made out from the facts that he was carrying beef.
6. I have further gone through the impugned judgment. According the learned trial court, as the appellant has not taken precaution to cover the beef properly resulting in falling of blood drops, he has committed this offence. He further found and held that the appellant has insulted the informant and others accompanying him. However in the facts stated above, I do not find that the charge has been substantiated in this context, unless the act was done with intention to cause religious rift to instigate communal disharmony between the two -groups. From bare perusal of the fard beyan and the statement of P.W. 1 and 2, I do not find that this offence has been committed.
7. Having regards to the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge under Section 295A/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges. The judgment of conviction and sentences dated 26.8.2002 passed by the court below in ST. No. 147 of 1998 is set aside.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail; he is directed to be released from the liabilities of his bail bond.