Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rita devi in Rita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2018Matching Fragments
Against the judgment dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner No. XVIth, Ranchi in Session Trial No.531 of 2005 arising out of Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 105 of 2004, corresponding to G. R. No. 1998 of 2004.
----
Rita Devi ....Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gafoor Mian @ Gafur Ansari
3. Afjal Ansari
4. Mahmood Ansari
5. Sarif Ansari
6. Kalim Ansari
7. Ishaque Ansari
8. Idrish Ansari
9. Shamim Ansari
10. Firoj Ansari
11. Nasim Ansari ....Opp. Parties.
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Adv.
Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opp. Party no. 2-11 : M/s. Madhulika Dasgupta
& J. Mazumdar, Advs.
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Informant is aggrieved by the acquittal of accused persons by impugned judgment dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner No. XVIth, Ranchi in Session Trial No.531 of 2005. Ten accused persons/opposite party nos. 2 to 11 herein stood acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149, 447, 324, 307, 341, 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the case of the prosecution based on written report of informant, Rita Devi, on 11th July, 2004, the informant, her husband and family members had gone to the place of occurrence to plough the field. Suddenly, at about 7 a.m. the accused persons, Gafur Mian, Shamim, Nasim, Afzal, Ishaque and Idris armed with bhala, farsa and lathi came to the field. Accused, Mahmood, Kalim, Sharif, Firoz with 4-5 persons also reached there. They began to abuse the informant, on which she protested. Accused Shamim armed with Bhujali, Mahmood with sword, Afzal with gupti, Nasim with Akain and other with lathi attacked on Munnilal Mahto, Maniram mahto, Meghnath Mahto, Santosh Mahto, Ramjit Mahto, Girdhari Mahto and Falinder Mahto and inflicted injury on them. Maniram Mahto sustained cut injury on his head, Ramjit Mahto got injury on his head, Meghnath Mahto sustained injury on his forehead and others also sustained injury on their hand, leg and back. Several persons had gathered during the occurrence and the accused persons fled away.
7. P. W.-1, in his cross-examination, had stated that the place of occurrence was a land being cultivated by the accused persons for 8-10 years prior to the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the field of Ghadda Par on 11th July, 2004 at about 7 a.m. According to him, Ramjit Mahto, Meghnath Mahto,Krishna Mahto, Halindra Mahto, Maniram mahto,Munnilal Mahto, Santosh Mahto, Girdhari Mahto, Sanjay Mahto, Rita Devi, Lalmani Devi and Raso Devi all had gone to plough the field, then the accused persons Gafur Ansari, Afzal, Mahmood, Ishaque, Idris , Shamim, Nasim, Firoz, Sharif and Kalam reached there with Bhujali, Farsa, Ballam and Akin and began to assault, as a result of assault, Maniram, Ranjit Mahto, Halindra, Meghnath, Santosh and Munilal became injured. Learned trial Court found that the prosecution witness no. 1 had made a vague statement in the sense that he failed to disclose as to which accused carried which weapon of assault as alleged in the written report. He also failed to state as to on which part of the body, Maniram Mahto and others sustained injuries as alleged in the written report. P.W.-1 had failed to corroborate the instances of assault by the individual accused persons through the weapon of offence upon the injured persons, who were individual members of the informant party.