Jharkhand High Court
Balram Ravidas vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 June, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.557 of 2012
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2012 and order of sentence dated
04.05.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions
Trial Case No.134 of 2010 (arising out of Bermo P.S. Case No.149 of 2009).
Balram Ravidas .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
.....
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 04.05.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge- I, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial Case No.134 of 2010 (arising out of Bermo P.S. Case No.149 of 2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one month under Section 341 IPC, RI for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 325 IPC, RI of two under Section 338 IPC and RI of seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 IPC.
2. Manju Devi is the informant of the case. As per the FIR on 11.11.2009 at 1.30 P.M., her niece had gone to meet natural call, and when she did not return within half an hour then the informant went to look out for her and saw the accused/appellant, Balram Ravidas @ Bablu assaulting her niece by a big stone. After seeing her, he fled away from the place of occurrence. She was taken for treatment at Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro. It is alleged that on 12.10.2009, he had committed rape with her and had also broken her hands. This matter had been informed to the Police, but the accused was not arrested. Appellant/ accused had also misbehaved with her niece when she went to attend the call of nature. It is alleged that on 30.06.2009, an attempt of rape was made regarding which a panchayati was held on 02.07.2009.
3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, FIR being Bermo P.S. Case No.149 of 2009 was lodged under Sections 341, 325, 338, 307 IPC and against the accused/appellant. Police on investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet.
14. After cognizance, the accused was put on trial for the offences under these sections in which altogether 11 witnesses were examined and after the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. Defence is of innocence and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of it.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there are vital contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. As per the informant, she was assaulted by means of a piece of stone, but nowhere the victim (P.W.8) had said so.
6. It is further argued that contrary to the deposition of the informant (P.W.9) in Para-8 that earlier also the victim had lodged a case against the appellant. This has been denied in Para-5 by the victim wherein she has stated that the incidence of teasing and stalking took place one year's ago, but no case was lodged.
7. Further-more, the offence of attempting to commit murder is not proved in view of the injury report as the injury was not found to be sufficient to cause death.
8. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and all the witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. The victim who is the injured has also been examined and deposed that the accused had tried to strangulate as a result of which, she became unconscious. She was assaulted thereafter, therefore, it was natural that she could not be witnessed to the subsequent assault being made with stone by the accused.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and the evidence on record, it is evident that there is no material to suggest false implication on account of any dispute between the parties. As a matter of fact, it has come in evidence that it was the appellant who had been stalking and making sexual advances towards the victim and on being spurned, he committed the offence. Although, no case was lodged earlier as it will be evident from the testimony of the victim (P.W.-8) but it has been specifically stated by her that one year ago also such incidence of teasing has been made regarding which the Panchayati was held.
10. The other witnesses have corroborated the testimony of the victim and the informant. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The incidence took place on 1l.11.2009 and on the very same day, the case was lodged. As per the testimony of Dr. Annand Kumar (P.W.10), the injured was examined on the very same date and found that she had suffered head injury. This injury was grievous in nature 2 and dangerous to life. Another injury was facio maxillary injury. That was also grievous. Both injuries were grievous in nature. This fully corroborates the case of the prosecution that the victim was assaulted by stone. It is settled principle of law that evidence of injured is entitled to get higher degree of credence.
In the present case, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim and informant, as corroborated by the other witnesses and the medical evidence.
Learned Trial Court has however committed an error in convicting the appellant under both major as well as minor offences which is not in accordance with the principle of law under Section 222 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 71 IPC.
In view of the conviction under Section 307 IPC, conviction under Section 325 IPC and 338 IPC is uncalled for.
The judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC is affirmed. The bail granted to the appellant earlier stands cancelled and the appellant is directed to surrender before the learned court below so as to serve remaining part of sentence.
The instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with above modification in finding.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 26.06.2024.
sandeep/ 3