Jharkhand High Court
Trilochan Naik ? Gudru & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2017 (2) AJR 862, (2016) 167 ALLINDCAS 751 (JHA), (2017) 1 JCR 304 (JHA), (2017) 1 JLJR 286
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
1
Cr. Appeal No. 233 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2003 and order of
sentence dated 28.01.2003, passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West)
in Sessions Trial No. 52/93]
1. Trilochan Naik alias Gudru son of Bibhishan Naiak, resident of
village Garka, PS Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum (West).
2. Govind Naik son of Late Dhandal Naik.
3. Prasann Naik son of Late Upendra Naik.
4. Holi Naik son of Late Aharkar Naik.
5. Dirjo Naik, son of Late Charan Naik.
6. Mukhi Naik, son of Late Kartik Mahto.
7. Durga Naik, son of Late Charan Naik.
8. Gaur Chandra Naik, son of Late Ghasi Naik,
9. Ramo Naik, son of Bimba Naik.
10. Bipro Naik, son of Bimba Naik.
Appellants No.2 to 10 are resident of village Meramera, PS
Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum.
....Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, A.P.P.
J U D G M E N T
By Court: This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 27.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2003, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West) in Sessions Trial No. 52/93, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 324/149, 325/149 of the 2 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. under Sections 325/149 IPC for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/ each. In default of payment of fine, they are liable to go further R.I. for two months. They are also sentenced to undergo R.I. under Sections 324/149 IPC for six months and under Section 148 IPC for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in short on the basis of fardbeyan of informant Sarthe Pradhan of Meremera village, PS Chakradharpur recorded by Sri J.M. Singh, officerincharge, Chadradharpur at village Meremera on 11990 at about 8.30 hours in presence of Ram Chandra Pradhan and Promod Pradhan is that on previous night (10990) at about 8.30 p.m. the informant along with Kritibas Pradhan, Santanu Pradhan and Sasank Pradhan had gone to attend the natural call and as they reached near pond they saw that three persons were catching fish and being challenged, they started running away, of whom they caught hold Trilochan @ Gudru. On inquiry, he confessed his guilt and told that he along with accused Gobind Naik and Baisakhu Naik were fishing and seeing them other two accused persons were fleeing away. Thereafter, accused Trilochan @ Gudru was taken to the house of Ramchandra Pradhan where he was kept confined during the night due to absence of Ram Chandra Pradhan in his resident. It is said that next morning that is on 11990 at about 7 a.m. accused Durga Charan Naik along with Ramu Naik, Mukhi Mahto, Biswa Naik, Gora Naik, Bipra Naik, Basu Naik and Dina Naik came to the house of Ramchandra Pradhan (PW1) and they took away Trilochan Naik @ Gudru Naik and the fishing net along with them. In morning, informant informed Ramchandra Pradhan. Thereafter Ramchandra Pradhan had handed over a written report to Sarathi Pradhan who along with PW3 Sashak Pradhan, PW4 Kritibas Pradhan went to Mukhia who directed them to go to Sarpanch, thereafter at about 7.30 a.m. the informant along with Santanu Pradhan, Sashank Pradhan and Kritibas Pradhan proceeded to 3 Sarpanch's house and as they are reached the main road of the village Meremera it is said that all the accused persons surrounded them. Accused Durga Naik and Kisto Naik had instigated the other accused to assault them as they thought that pond belongs to them. It is also said that on this instigation accused Mukhi Mahto shot arrow upon informant but being bowed down informant saved himself. It is also alleged that Gobind Naik hit axe upon Kritibas Pradhan and accused Trilochan Pradhan assaulted to informant and his associates by charging rod indiscriminately upon them. As a result of which, Santanu Pradhan, Sashank Pradhan and Kritibas Pradhan fell down sustaining injuries. Thereafter informant went to the house of Ramchandra Pradhan (PW1) and narrated the incident of assault on them. The injured persons were brought to hospital by villagers. Police arrived at PO and recorded the fardbeyan of informant in presence of witnesses Ramchandra Pradhan and Pramod Kr. Pradhan.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Chakradharpur PS Case No. 140/90 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 307, 324, 323, 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accusedappellants.
4. The police, after due investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellants. Accordingly, on the basis of chargesheet, learned S.D.J.M., Porahat took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 52/93.
5. Charges were framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, which included injured witnesses as well as Doctor. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence to undergo R.I. under Sections 325/149 IPC for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/ each. In default of payment of fine, they are liable to go further R.I. for two months. They are also 4 sentenced to undergo R.I. under Sections 324/149 IPC for six months and under Section 148 IPC for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal.
7. PW2 is Sarthi Kr. Pradhan (Informant). He is one of the injured eyewitness. He has deposed that on 10990 at about 8.30 p.m. he along with Kritibas Pradhan, Santanu Pradhan and Sasank Pradhan had gone to respond natural call and as they reached near pond, they saw that three persons were catching fish from the pond and On challenging the three persons, they started running away, but they were able to catch hold one Trilochan @ Gudru. On inquiry, he confessed his guilt and told that he along with accused Gobind Naik and Baisakhu Naik were fishing and seeing them other two accused persons were fleeing away. Thereafter, accused Trilochan @ Gudru was taken to the house of Ramchandra Pradhan where he was kept confined during the night. In the next morning that is on 11990 at about 4 p.m. other accused came to the house of Ramchandra Pradhan (PW1) and they took away Trilochan Naik @ Gudru Naik and the fishing net along with them. He has further deposed in para2 of his deposition that appellant Trilochan, assaulted them with Lathi and that appellantMukhi shot arrow, but it did not hit him. Appellant Govind gave Tangi blow to Kirtibas Pradhan and he had fled away. He has further deposed that Kritibas Pradhan, Sashank Pradhan and Santanu Pradhan had fallen down in a injured condition. In para5, he has further deposed that the appellant Govind had given Tangi blow on Kirtibas Pradhan.
8. PW3 is Sashank Pradhan. He is an injured eyewitness as well as nephew of the informant. He has also supported the evidence of PW2. In para1 of his deposition, he has deposed that accused appellants were armed with weapon restrained them in the way and assaulted them and that they were injured. Kritibas Pradhan sustained head injury and Santanu Pradhan sustained injury in hand.
5In his cross examination, he has however admitted that the there is dispute exists among the villagers regarding the pond.
9. PW4 is Kritibas Pradhan. He is also an injured eyewitness and brother of the informant. PW5 is Santanu Pradhan. He is also an injured eyewitness and brother of the informant. Both have supported the evidence of PW2 and PW3.
10. PW6 is Satya Ranjan Chatterjee. He is an Advocate Clerk as well as formal witness. He has proved fardbeyan, which is marked as Ext.2, formal FIR, marked as Ext.3 and injury report, which is marked as Ext.4, 4/a, 4/b, 4/c.
11. PW7 is Dr. Parmila Kujur. She had examined injured Kritibas Pradhan and said that weapon used was hard and blunt substance, such as, lathi and also sharp cutting weapon. She said all the injuries were grievous in nature. She had examined the injured Santanu Pradhan and said weapon used was hard blunt substance and all the injuries were grievous in nature. She had also examined the informant Sarathi Pradhan and said that weapon used was lathi and the injuries were simple in nature.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has appeared and said that the appellants have already undergone relatively long period in custody about three months and his sentence may be considered as undergone period.
13. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is direct allegation in the fardbeyan that the incident took place regarding theft of fish in pond. It is clear from the evidence, that has been narrated during course of hearing in the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, who are the injured eye witnesses, that they have all supported the each other's evidence, so this case is conclusively proved against the appellants on the basis of direct deposition itself. Additional evidence of the Doctor's injury report corroborates the evidence of injured witnesses, so the case is 6 thoroughly proved against them. Therefore, conviction of the appellants deserves to be upheld.
14. Taking into account the evidence of the case, and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the State, this is in a way a rather simple case to determine. There is not one eyewitness, but rather four injured eyewitnesses. And injured eyewitnesses are said to be more reliable. The Doctor has also examined at least three of the injured eyewitnesses and corroborated their injuries and has in turn corroborated the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW5. Further motive was there with respect to theft of fish from pond.
15. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 324/149, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The case is an old one and occurrence is said to have taken place in 1990. It is almost twenty six years by now. The appellants have also undergone long harassing period of trial and appeal and suffered related vagaries, hardships and uncertainties. However, it seems from the records of the case that they have already undergone relatively long period in custody of about three months out of the sentence imposed of six months. Taking all these circumstances, the appellants' sentence is restricted to the period already undergone. Appellants are set at liberty from their liability of bail bonds. Fine amount imposed is sustained for which successor or concerned court shall take appropriate steps.
16. Thus, with conviction being upheld, and sentence modified to the extent aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, The 19th August, 2016, SB/ NAFR