Jharkhand High Court
Usha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2019 (1) AJR 48
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, B.B. Mangalmurti
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007
And analogous appeals
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2007
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1015 of 2007
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1054 of 2007
(Against the Judgement of conviction dated 10.04.2007 and Order of sentence
dated 13.04.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -IV, Bokaro,
in S.T. No.86 of 2006.)
Usha Devi ... ... Appellant
(In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007
Prabhat Gope ... ... Appellant
(In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2007
Mihir Gope ... ... Appellant
(In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1015 of 2007
Manohar Gope ... ... Appellant
(In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1054 of 2007
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
(In all the cases)
----------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
---------
For the Appellants : M/s. Rashmi Kumari,
Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocates
For the State : M/s. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
----------
C.A.V. on: 06.09.2018 Pronounced on: 10.10.2018
H.C. Mishra, J.:- Since all these four appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgement,
they were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common Judgement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 10.04.2007 and Order of sentence dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No.86 of 2006, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 325, 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and all these sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -2-
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Kasi Ram Mahto, recorded on 20.08.2005 at Bokaro General Hospital, at about 14 hours, wherein he has stated that on 19.08.2005 he was informed by his brother Premchand Mahto on telephone that the accused Manohar Gope had built his house on their land. Upon getting this information he, along with his wife Puna Devi, came to their land at about 8:00 A.M., on 20.08.2005, where he saw that on their land, a hut was constructed with tiled roof thereon. His brothers had reached there and the accused Manohar Gope was also present there. He asked Manohar Gope to remove the hut and assured that they would transfer the land in his favour later on, whereupon Manohar Gope assaulted his brother Anil Kumar Mahto by a rod on his head with the intention to cause his death, due to which his brother fell down and became unconscious. When the informant went to his rescue the accused Manohar Gope assaulted the informant also injuring him. In the meantime the accused persons Mihir Gope, Prabhat Gope, Kailash Gope all sons of Manohar Gope, and a lady, who were also armed with tangi, lathi and rod, came out from the hut and assaulted the informant, his brother Jatu Ram Mahto, Puranchand Mahto, Premchand Mahto and also Anil Kumar Mahto, and all of them were badly injured. Anil Mahto and Jatu Ram Mahto had sustained serious injuries on their head and hand and they had become unconscious. Claiming that the accused persons had assaulted and injured the informant's side by tangi, rod and lathi, the fardbeyan was given by the informant Kasi Ram Mahto, on the basis of which Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 97 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.895 of 2005, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused persons and investigation was taken up. In the meantime during treatment two injured persons, namely, Anil Mahto and Jatu Ram Mahto died, and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.
5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 341 / 149, 447, 325 / 34, 307 / 34 and 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. It may be stated that one of the accused, namely, Kailash Gope was declared juvenile.
6. In course of trial 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of both the deceased, as also the Doctors who had examined the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -3- injured persons, and the I.O. of the case. The defence has also examined two witnesses in the case.
7. P.W.- 12 Kasi Ram Mahto is the informant in the case. He is also the brother of both the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 20.08.2005 at about 8:00 A.M., in the morning. He had gone on his land situated at Obera, along with his wife, and by that time, his brothers Anil Kumar Mahto, Jatu Mahto, Premchand Mahto, Puranchand Mahto, Dakshineshwar Mahto, Mukteshwar Mahto and Vijay Kumar Mahto had already reached there. He was earlier informed by Premchand by telephone that Manohar Gope had constructed a hut on their land. At the place of occurrence Manohar Gope and his sons Mihir Gope, Prabhat Gope and Kailash Gope were present. He asked Manohar Gope as to why he had constructed the hut on their land and he also assured him that he would transfer the land in his favour, whereupon the accused stated that the land belonged to him. He asked Manohar Gope to remove the hut, whereupon Manohar Gope assaulted Anil Mahto by rod on his head, due to which Anil Mahto fell down. When this witness tried to save him, Manohar Gope assaulted this witness also by rod on his head and hand. He has also stated that wife of Mihir Gope gave the weapons to the other accused persons from the hut. She gave tangi to Mihir Gope, sabbal to Prabhat Gope and gupti to Kailash. He has further stated that when Jatu tried to tie the wound of Anil, Manohar assaulted him also by rod on his head injuring him. When Puran went to save them, he was also assaulted. All the sons of Manohar Gope had assaulted and injured Puran and Prem. Mukteshwar Mahto and Vijay Kumar Mahto went to the Police Station, whereupon the police arrived at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away. The police took them to Chas Referral Hospital and from there they were referred to Bokaro General Hospital. This witness has stated that in the Bokaro General Hospital, Anil died at about 5:00 P.M., and on the next morning on 21st, Jatu Mahto also died. Premchand was unconscious and other injureds were being treated. This witness has stated that the police had recorded his fardbeyan, whereupon he had put his signature, which on his identification was marked Exhibit-6. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, in which he has stated that he was in the night duty and after getting the information after he came home from duty at about 6:30 A.M., in the morning, he proceeded for the place of occurrence at about 6:45 A.M., on a scooter and he reached the place of occurrence, where his brothers were already present. He has stated that he had no information earlier that the accused had constructed the hut on his land.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -4- He has stated that it was an agriculture land, and the main road is at a distance of about 500 yards. He has stated that the accused had no land there and the land of occurrence was measuring about 80 decimals, out of 2 Acres 16½ Decimals. In about 14 decimals of land the accused had constructed his hut. The land bears Khata No. 35 and Plot No. 138. This witness has further stated that Anil had become unconscious and this witness had also become unconscious, but he soon gained consciousness. The occurrence had taken place for about five minutes during which all the injureds were assaulted by the accused persons. He was also assaulted by Manohar on his head by rod. Mihir Gope was assaulting by tangi. This witness has also stated that the police arrived in about 3 minutes at the place of occurrence. The police took the injureds to the hospital on the police jeep. Earlier they were brought to Chas Hospital, from where they were referred to Bokaro General Hospital. His statement was recorded on 21st also. He has stated that all his brothers were joint and there was no partition between them. He has stated that there was tiled roof on the hut, and he has denied the suggestion that while they were destroying the hut they were injured due to the falling of the tiles, and they have falsely implicated the accused persons.
8. The other witnesses supporting the prosecution case as eye witnesses, are P.W.-2 Puna Devi, P.W.-3 Puranchand Mahto, P.W.-4 Vijay Kumar Mahto, P.W.-5 Mukteshwar Mahto, P.W.-7 Dakshineshwar Mahto and P.W.-11 Premchand Mahto. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution case more or less in the same manner as stated by the informant Kasi Ram Mahto. They all have stated that the occurrence took place on 20.08.2005 at about 8:00 A.M., in the morning, when they had gone to their land at Obera. They have stated that the accused had constructed the hut on their land and the informant asked Manohar Gope to remove the hut, assuring that they would transfer the land to him. They have stated that Manohar Gope assaulted Anil Mahto by iron rod causing injuries on his head and when Jatu Ram Mahto went to his rescue he was also assaulted and injured by Manohar Gope by rod on his head. The other persons were also assaulted by all the accused persons. P.W.-11 Premchand Mahto has also stated that he is still undergoing treatment at Bokaro General Hospital. However, in the evidence of none of these witnesses there is any allegation of assault upon the accused Usha Devi. They have alleged the assault only against Manohar Gope and his sons Prabhat Gope and Mihir Gope, who were facing the trial, and against Kailash Gope, who had been declared juvenile. Out of these witnesses P.W.-7 Dakshineshwar Mahto is also the witness to the seizure of blood-stained soil from the place of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -5- occurrence, and he has proved his signature on the seizure list which was marked Exhibit-2. These witnesses in their cross-examination have stated that Manohar was not in possession of the land, and the informant's side consisted of eight persons whereas from the accuseds' side there were only four persons. The Police Station was situated at a distance of about 100-150 feet only from the place of occurrence, and the police had arrived soon after the occurrence, upon getting the information, but by that time the accused persons had fled away. The police had taken the injureds to the hospital. P.W.-4 Vijay Kumar Mahto has stated in his cross-examination that the land in question was recorded in the name of Kamal Mahto and Sripati Mahto and its area was about 1 Acre and 16 ½ decimals. P.W.-5 Mukteshwar Mahto has stated in his cross-examination that by the side of the place of occurrence there is a pond belonging to Manohar Gope and his lands are also situated nearby. P.W.-7 Dakshineshwar Mahto has also given the details of the land in question in his cross-examination, stating that the land was bearing Khata No. 35, Plot No. 138, Area 2 Acres 16 ½ decimals, and National Highway is situated East to it. This witness has also stated that the houses of the accused persons were also situated at a distance of about 70 yards from the hut that was constructed by the accused persons, and the Police Station was also situated at a distance of about 200 yards. P.W.-2 Puna Devi has stated in her cross-examination that Usha Devi had not taken part in the assaults. However, all these witnesses have alleged assaults on the remaining accused persons, namely, Manohar Gope, Prabhat Gope and Mihir Gope, out of which there is allegation of assault upon the deceased Anil Mahto against Manohar Gope, and the allegations of assault upon the other deceased Jatu Mahto and the injured witnesses, are against all the three male appellants.
9. P.W.-6 Amit Kumar Mahto is the son of the deceased Jatu Mahto and he is a hearsay witness. This witness had stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 20.08.2005 he was going on motorcycle from Chas to his village, and in the way he found that his family members, namely, Kasi Ram Mahto, Dakshineshwar Mahto, Mukteshwar Mahto, Jatu Mahto, uncle Anil, Premchand, Puranchand were being taken on a police jeep to the hospital. This witness also followed them to Referral Hospital at Chas, where he saw Anil Mahto seriously injured and his father Jatu Mahto was also having injuries on his head and both of them were unconscious. The others were injured and Premchand was also unconscious with bleeding injuries. Kasi Ram and Puranchand Mahto were also injured. He was informed about the occurrence by his uncle Kasi Ram Mahto. He has stated that in the same evening his uncle Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -6- Anil Mahto died and on the next day morning his father also died. He has stated that Premchand Mahto was still undergoing treatment. He has also identified the accused in the Court.
10. P.W.-8 Sarweshwar Mahto is another hearsay witness. He is also son of one of the injured. This witness has stated that upon getting the information about the occurrence he went to the hospital in the night where he saw Kasi Ram Mahto sitting in front of Casualty Ward. He was in injured condition and others were unconscious. He was informed about the occurrence by Kasi Ram Mahto. This witness has stated that Anil Mahto died in the same evening, and on the next day morning the other brother also died. The police prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies on which this witness had put his signatures and he has proved his signatures on the inquest reports of both the dead bodies, which were marked as Exhibits-3 & 4.
11. P.W.-10 Gulichand Mahto is a witness to the seizure of blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence, and he has proved his signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exhibit- 2/1. P.W.-1 Laxmi Devi is the wife of the accused Prabhat Gope and she is only a witness to the seizure of a sabbal and she has identified her signature on the seizure list which was marked Exhibit-1. In her cross-examination she has however, stated that her signature was obtained on a plain paper.
12. P.W.-9 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of both the deceased on 21.08.2005. On the dead body of Anil Kumar Mahto, he had found the following injuries:-
External Injuries:
i) Lacerated wound with fracture of occipital bone size 4 ½" x 1" x bone deep.
ii) On dissection of skull, blood clots are found in profuse amount in between pia and dura mater of skull.
iii) Heart, spleen, lungs, liver were pale. Stomach contained liquid and gas.
He has stated that the cause of death was due to severe head injuries and excessive bleeding leading to shock and cardio-respiratory failure. He has proved the post-mortem report of Anil Mahto to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-5.
On the same day he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jatu Mahto and had found the following injuries:-
External Injuries:
i) Fracture of occipital bone with swelling.
ii) Fracture of left parietal bone with lacerated wound, profuse bleedings were seen and coagulated blood around the skull.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -7-
iii) On dissection, Heart, spleen, liver, lungs, kidney were pale. Stomach contained liquid and gas.
He has stated that cause of death was severe head injury causing excessive bleeding. Coagulated blood found in pia and dura mater, leading to shock and cardio-respiratory failure. He has proved the post-mortem report of Jatu Mahto to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-5/1. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that these injuries could be caused by fall on hard and blunt substance, or due to fall of any hard and blunt object upon the deceased.
13. P.W.-13 Dr. Shishir Kr. Singh Munda had examined the injureds Premchand Mahto and Kasi Ram Mahto. He has proved the two injuries on both these injureds which according to this witness were simple in nature. In both these injureds one injury was on head, whereas the other was on hand. He has proved the injury reports to be in his pen and signature which were marked Exhibits -7 and 7/1.
14. P.W.-14 Dr. Dhananjay Rajak had treated Anil Kumar Mahto and Jatu Mahto, both the deceased and also the injured Puranchand Mahto. On the injured Puranchand Mahto he had found simple injuries and the injury reports issued by this Doctor were marked as Exhibits -7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 respectively.
15. P.W.-15 Dr. Narendra Kr. Das has proved the CT Scan Reports of heads of the deceased Jatu Mahto and Anil Mahto, as also of Premchand Mahto which shows that the injuries on those persons were grievous in nature. He has proved his reports, which were also marked Exhibits- 7/5 to 7/7.
16. P.W.-16 Prem Kumar Hembram is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 20.08.2005 he was posted as S.I. at Pindrajora Police Station. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Kasi Ram Mahto at Bokaro General Hospital at about 2:00 P.M., which he has proved to be in his pen and signature and he has also proved the endorsement thereon, which were marked Exhibits- 6 and 6/1 respectively. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which was marked Exhibit- 8. He has stated that he was handed over the charge of investigation. He had inspected the place of occurrence. This witness has stated that at about 8:15 A.M., in the morning he was at the Police Station when two to three persons came and informed about the altercation that was going on. The sanha entry about the information was made and the Officer-Incharge along with the police party proceeded towards the place of occurrence, where Anil Kumar Mahto, Jatu Ram Mahto, Premchand Mahto and Puranchand Mahto were found fallen down in injured conditions. They were brought to hospital and from hospital they were referred to Bokaro General Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -8- Hospital. He had recorded the fardbeyan at Bokaro General Hospital, on the basis of which the police case was instituted. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is by the side of N.H.-32, bearing Plot No. 138, Khata No. 35, recorded in the name of Kamal Mahto and Sripati Mahto. He was also informed that out of the said land Kasi Ram Mahto and Puranchand Mahto had transferred about 20 decimals of land in favour of their sister, and the remaining land was in the possession of Kasi Ram Mahto etc. The occurrence had taken place on the same land where the injureds were found in the injured condition. He found the blood stains at the place of occurrence, and he seized the blood stained soil in presence of the witnesses. He has proved the seizure list which was marked Exhibit- 2/3. He also found a newly constructed hut at the place of occurrence, which was having the tiled roof. On some portion, tile was still to be fixed and he also found some tiles and bamboos near the hut, where he was informed that the occurrence had taken place. The hut was constructed by the accused persons. He raided the house of the accused persons, but they were not found. He recorded the statements of the other witnesses and sent the blood stained soil to malkhana. On 21.08.2005 he was informed that Anil Mahto had died. He went to the hospital and he received the injury reports of the injureds. He again recorded the re-statement of Kasi Ram Mahto and in the meantime Jatu Mahto also died. He prepared the inquest reports of both the dead bodies, which he has proved to be in his pen and signature and the same were marked Exhibits- 3/1 and 4/1. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. On 21.8.2005 the accused persons were arrested and he recorded the statements of the accused persons in which they admitted their guilt, and the confessional statement of Manohar Gope was also recorded by him which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-9. On the basis of the confessional statement of the accused Manohar Gope, he had recovered an iron sabbal and a lathi from his house, and prepared the seizure list. He has proved the seizure list which was marked Exhibit-1/1. He recorded the statements of the other witnesses, but he could not record the statement of Premchand Mahto as he was unconscious. He had submitted the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. He has also identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he had also gone to the place of occurrence along with the Officer-Incharge, and they had brought the injureds to the hospital within five to ten minutes. Some of them were unconscious. This witness has also stated that the house of the accused persons is situated at a distance of about 500 to 600 metres from the place of occurrence. There was no cultivation on the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals -9- land where the occurrence had taken place and he had not seen any document relating to the sale of the land. He has also stated that there was no blood-stains on the sabbal which he had seized. Some contradictions have been taken about the statements made by the witnesses before him, but they are not of much importance, as they do not relate to the assaults made upon the deceased persons. He had seen tiles, bamboos and straws at the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation.
17. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused persons have denied the evidence against them. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence, who are D.W.-1 Nitai Gope and D.W.-2, Sambhu Gope, and both these witnesses have come to depose that the injuries were caused to the injureds and the deceased, while they were destroying the hut of the accused. They were injured due to the falling of the tiles etc., in course of destroying the hut. On the basis of the evidence on the record the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that there was land dispute between the parties and the informant's side had come to the land and they were destroying the hut constructed by the accused persons. It is submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the spur of moment and as such, no offence can be said to be made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather the offence if any, can be said to be made out only under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, for which the appellant Manohar Gope, who is throughout in custody, and the appellants Mihir Gope and Prabhat Gope, who have also remained in custody for approximately ten years, have been sufficiently punished. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 327, as also in Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) INSC 1485, wherein it has been held that where the occurrence had taken place after a sudden verbal quarrel and there was no pre-meditated plan to attack the deceased, the conviction under Section 302 cannot be said to be made out and the offence is made out only under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, as the incident had taken place in the spur of moment.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals
- 10 -
19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that no sharp cutting injury was found on any of the deceased, even though there is allegation of assault by sharp cutting weapon also, which makes the prosecution case very doubtful. It is also submitted that no offence can be said to be made out against Usha Devi, as no allegation of assault against her is made by any of the eye witnesses, though some of them have only stated that she had given weapons to the other accused. However, the fact remains that P.W.-2 Puna Devi has admitted in her cross-examination that Usha Devi had not taken part in the assaults. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since the occurrence had taken place due to land dispute between the parties and there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the accused persons were entitled at least to the benefits of doubt.
20. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitting that all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that it was the accused Manohar Gope who had assaulted both the deceased on his head by iron rod and all the accused persons had assaulted and injured the other deceased namely Jatu Mahto and the other injured persons. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Pramod Kumar, P.W.-13 Dr. Shishir Kr. Singh Munda, P.W.-14 Dr. Dhananjay Rajak, P.W.-15 Dr. Narendra Kr. Das and the post-mortem reports and the injury reports proved by these witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that two persons were assaulted to death by the accused persons for the fact that the informant's side had requested the accused to remove the hut illegally constructed on their land. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the hut was illegally constructed and even the I.O. has stated that the land belonged to the informant's side and not to the accused, it is apparent that the occurrence had taken place in a bid to grab the land of the informant's side and as such it cannot be said that the occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment. Learned counsel submitted that two persons, who were the rightful owner of the land in question, had been assaulted to death by the accused persons and the offence is clearly made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court.
21. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that the hut was illegally constructed by the accused persons on the land of the informant and his brothers, which was being objected, and in course of that the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals
- 11 -
informant's side was assaulted by the accused persons in which two persons had lost their lives. The evidence on record clearly shows that the land of dispute belonged to the informant's side, who were the absentee landlord as they were residents of a different village. The accused persons were having their land near the place of occurrence and they attempted to grab the land of the informant's side by constructing the hut on it, due to which the occurrence had taken place. Though the accused had claimed the land to be his own, but there is nothing on the record to show that the land belonged to the accused, nor any evidence has been adduced by the defence, claiming right, title and possession over the land in question. There is specific allegation against the accused Manohar Gope to have assaulted both the deceased on their head and there is allegation against Prabhat Gope and Mihir Gope also to have assaulted one of the deceased Jatu Mahto and the other injured witnesses. The assaults made by the accused persons proved fatal to two persons from the informant's side, namely, Anil Mahto and Jatu Mahto, who died due to the injuries sustained by them, and the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Pramod Kumar and the post-mortem reports proved by him, which show that the impacts of assaults on both the deceased were such that their skull bones were found fractured and blood and blood clots were found in between pia and dura mater of brain of both the deceased, which clearly indicate that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause their death, and both the deceased were assaulted with the intention to cause their death. The injuries on the injured witnesses are also proved by P.W.-13 Dr. Shishir Kr. Singh Munda, P.W.-14 Dr. Dhananjay Rajak, P.W.-15 Dr. Narendra Kr. Das and the injury reports proved by them. On the head of Premchand Mahto, the injury was found to be grievous in nature, as is apparent from the evidence of P.W.-15 Dr. Narendra Kr. Das, and the report of C.T. Scan proved by him, and it has come in evidence that till the examination of the P.Ws., Premchand Mahto was still undergoing the treatment in the hospital. This shows that at least this witness was also assaulted with the intention to cause his death. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home all the charges against the accused appellants, namely, Manohar Gope, Prabhat Gope and Mihir Gope, beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, so far as these appellants are concerned. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants are not at all applicable to the facts of this case.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007 And analogous appeals
- 12 -
22. However, the fact remains that there is no allegation of assault against the accused Usha Devi in the evidence of the eye witnesses, though some of them have stated that Usha Devi had given the weapons to the other accused persons. The fact however, remains that P.W.-2 Puna Devi has clearly stated in her cross-examination that Usha Devi had not taken part in the assaults. We are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused Usha Devi beyond all reasonable doubts and she was entitled to the benefits of doubt.
23. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 10.04.2007 and Order of sentence dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No.86 of 2006, so far as they relate to the accused appellants, Prabhat Gope, Mihir Gope, and Manohar Gope, are hereby, affirmed. The appellant Manohar Gope is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellants Prabhat Gope and Mihir Gope are on bail. Their bails, are hereby, cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith to undergo the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue processes forthwith, compelling the surrender / production of these appellants for undergoing the sentence.
24. The aforesaid Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence, so far they relate to the appellant Usha Devi, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant Usha Devi is given the benefits of doubt and she is acquitted of the charges. The appellant Usha Devi is on bail, and she is discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond.
25. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 531 of 2007, is hereby, allowed. Whereas, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.1006, 1015 and 1054 of 2007, are hereby, dismissed, as we do not find any merit in these appeals. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgement.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) B.B. Mangalmurti, J.:-
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 10th of October, 2018. D.S./ N.A.F.R.