Jharkhand High Court
Triloki Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 441 of 2012
1. Triloki Singh S/o Indra Deo Singh
2. Balram Singh S/o Indra Deo Singh
3. Kundal Singh S/o Indra Deo Singh
4. Tribhuwan Singh @ Tibha Singh S/o Balram Singh
All of Village- Itko, P.O. + P.S.- Bishrampur
District- Palamau (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
09/23.08.2021 Heard Mr. Faruque Ansari, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing
on behalf of Opposite Party-State.
The present is criminal revision petition is directed
against the Judgment dated 23.05.2012 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2010,
whereby the learned appellate court upheld the conviction of
the petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian
Penal Code passed by the learned trial court. However, the
learned appellate court acquitted the petitioners from the
charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 447 of the Indian Penal
Code and also acquitted Abdul Gani Mian from all the charges
levelled against him.
- The appellate court upheld their sentences of Simple
Imprisonment for 01 month for the offence under Section 341 of
the Indian Penal Code,
- The appellate court modified and reduced their sentences for
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default in payment of fine, to further undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months and directed that 50% of the fine
amount will be paid to the Informant as compensation.
- The appellate court did not impose any sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no
separate sentence under this section was inflicted by the
learned trial court and no cross appeal was filed.
3. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R.
Case No. 737 of 1998 / Trial No. 182 of 2009 (arising out of
Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 62/1998 dated 02.07.1998) had
convicted the petitioners alongwith one Abdul Gani Mian for
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 447 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned trial court had sentenced the petitioners and
one Abdul Gani Mian to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01
year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 02 years under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 01 month under Section
341 of the Indian Penal Code, 03 years under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code and 03 months under Section 447 of the
Indian Penal Code and had directed that all the sentences shall
run concurrently. No separate sentence was passed under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
learned appellate court has upheld the conviction of the
petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code only and has imposed the maximum sentence of six
months with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that there
was land dispute between the parties and the petitioners were
found ploughing the field where the incident had taken place
and it was the informant-party who was the aggressor in the
case.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that -
-the date of incident is of the year 1998;
- the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had surrendered before the
court below on 19.06.2012 and the Petitioner No.4 had
surrendered on 02.07.2012 and they were released on bail
on 18.07.2012 during the pendency of the present
criminal revision petition and a few days must have been
taken to furnish the bail bonds before the learned court
below;
- the petitioners have faced the rigorous of the criminal
case for a long period and the age of the Petitioner Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4 was 75 years, 70 years, 65 years and 32 years
respectively, as recorded in the form of statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2009.
It is submitted that the sentences of the petitioners may be
modified to some extent. He submitted that he has also taken
instructions that some fine amount may be imposed upon them
to be given as victim compensation to the victims of the case.
He submitted that there were altogether five injured persons as
reflected from the impugned judgments.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, while opposing the prayer, did not dispute the fact
that there was land dispute between the parties and there was
also case and counter case between the parties. It has been
submitted that so far as the conviction of the petitioners under
Sections 341, 323 and 324 is concerned, there are concurrent
finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and
accordingly, no interference is called for in revisional
jurisdiction. She also submitted that considering the maximum
sentence prescribed for the offences, the sentences imposed by
the learned appellate court is sufficient and so far as the
modification of sentences is concerned, it is up to this Court to
consider the fact situation and to pass an appropriate order.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is
based on the fard-beyan of the Informant namely, Parikha
Prajapati recorded on 02.07.1998 alleging inter-alia that on
02.07.1998 at about 09.00 A.M., Triloki Singh and Gani Mian
were forcibly ploughing the field bearing Plot Nos. 58, 59, 119,
Khata No. 109 situated at a distance of half kilometers south-
west from his house and Kundal Singh, Balram Singh, Baburam
Singh, Shivratan Singh and Tibha Singh armed with lathi, tangi
were hiding in the bushes. When the Informant alongwith his
brothers, namely, Laxman Prajapati and Ram Naresh Prajapati
with plow and bull and Umesh Prajapati, Kamesh Prajapati
with seeds of paddy and pulses went to the field, the accused
persons assaulted the informant party by means of lathi and
danda causing head injuries to the Informant and Umesh
Prajapati and other injuries to other persons. The reason for the
occurrence was stated that Triloki Singh had filed a case in the
year 1991 before the Settlement Officer, Daltonganj in which the
judgment was delivered in favour of the Informant, but the
accused persons wanted to capture the field and the occurrence
took place for the same.
9. On the basis of the fard-beyan, the case was registered as
Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 62/1998 dated 02.07.1998 and after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
cognizance of the offence was taken.
10. On 06.03.1999, the charges under Sections 147/149, 148,
341, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code were framed
against the petitioners and Abdul Gani Mian, Baburam Singh
and Shivratan Singh which were read over and explained to
them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether
five witnesses. P.W.-1 is Dr Asim Kumar Manjhi, P.W.-2 is
Laxman Prajapati, P.W.-3 is Kamesh Prajapati, P.W.-4 is Parikha
Prajapati, who is the informant of the case and P.W.-5 is Ram
Naresh Prajapati. The prosecution exhibited the injury report of
the informant as Exhibit-1, injury report of Umesh Prajapati as
Exhibit-1/1, injury report of Ram Naresh Prajapati as Exhibit-
1/2, injury reports of Kamesh Prajapati as Exhibit-1/3 and
1/3A and injury report of Laxman Prajapati as 1/4.
12. On 10.08.2009, the statements of the petitioners were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the
incriminating evidences put to them and claimed to be
innocent. The accused persons examined three witnesses in
their defence. D.W.-1 is Bishwanath Bhuiyan, D.W.-2 is Ganesh
Singh and D.W.-3 is Triloki Singh. The defence exhibited the
Jamindari Patta as Exhibit-A and the rent receipts as Exhibits-B
and B/1.
13. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered
the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the
parties and summarized its findings at Para-13 of its judgment.
The learned trial court recorded that P.Ws. 2 to 5 belong to the
same family and they have received injuries which prove that
they were present at the place of occurrence. The learned trial
court considered the contradictions in the evidences of the
witnesses and found that the evidences of the eye-witnesses
were reliable. The learned trial court further recorded that
neither the Exhibits- A, B and B/1 produced by the defence
establish possession of the accused persons over the place of
occurrence land, nor D.Ws. - 1 to 3 have proved their possession
over the place of occurrence land. The learned trial court held
that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, interalia, against the
present petitioners.
14. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners
alongwith Abdul Gani Mian under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them
accordingly and acquitted Shivratan Singh from all the charges.
15. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences
adduced on behalf of the parties and considered the arguments
advanced on behalf of them and recorded its findings at Para-10
and 11 of its judgment. The learned appellate court found that
the parties were litigating for a particular piece of land and the
witnesses had generally stated that all the incident occurred in
the lands of the informant party and in such circumstances,
acquitted the accused persons for offence under section 447 IPC.
The learned appellate court also held that from the materials it
could be well inferred that there was a case and counter case
between the parties. However, the learned appellate court
recorded that presence of accused persons and taking part in
the assault is not disputed, rather it is a fact admitted and need
not be proved and considering from the evidences on record,
when all the accused persons five in number were present at
the place of occurrence. It was found that as per the evidence,
accused no.1 and accused no.2 were ploughing the field and
others were present there and when the informant party
reached there and tried to plough, the dispute arose which
ultimately led to assault. The learned appellate court was of the
view that in the circumstances, it appeared that accused
persons had formed an unlawful assembly at the spur of
moment when there was dispute between the parties in a heat
of passion and acquitted the accused persons for offence under
section 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC also. The finding regarding
injury has been recorded at para 11 of the impugned
judgement, which is quoted as under: -
11. According to P.W.-2, accused Balram Singh shown as
appellant no.3 assaulted Laxman Prajapati with lathi at his rib.
Kundal Singh and Tibha Singh assaulted also with lathi at the
hand. Babu Ram Singh assaulted Parikha with aid of Tangi. It
is pertinent that this Babu Ram Singh has been acquitted and
there is no appeal by the State against the said acquittal. The
said Babu Ram also assaulted Umesn, one of the injured. P.W.-
2 has stated that Triloki Singh has assaulted Parikha Prajapati.
Tibhu Singh assaulted Laxman with lathi. P.W.-4 stated that
Umesh was assaulted by Babu Ram (who has been acquitted).
Babu Ram assaulted this witness. Tribhuwan Singh assaulted
with tangi and according to P.W.-5, Tibha Singh assaulted
Laxman, Babu Ram assaulted Umesh and Parikha was
assaulted by Triloki Singh. Kundal Singh assaulted this
witness and Kamesh with lathi. These are the evidences, so far
the assault is concerned....................................."
16. So far as the co-convict Abdul Gani Mian is concerned, he
was acquitted by the learned appellate court on the ground that
there was no overt act by him in the commission of offence.
17. The learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the
petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and modified the sentences as already mentioned above.
18. This Court finds that P.W.-4 is the Informant of the case
who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and also
deposed that the assault continued for about 10 minutes. In
cross-examination, he admitted that the parties are litigating for
the place of occurrence land for last 3-4 years. This Court finds
that P.W.-4 is an injured eye witness to the occurrence and
P.W.-2 is also an eye-witness and he has fully supported the
version of the occurrence stated in the fard-beyan of the
Informant. P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 have also supported prosecution
case.
19. This Court further finds that P.W.-1 is the doctor who has
deposed that he had examined the victims, namely, Parikha
Prajapati, Umesh Prajapati, Ram Naresh Prajapati, Kamesh
Prajapati and Laxman Prajapati and he has exhibited their
injury reports prepared by him as Exhibits- 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 &
1/3A and 1/4 respectively.
20. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that both the
parties are in litigating terms from before with regard to claim
over the place of occurrence land and the presence of both the
parties at the place of occurrence has not been disputed on
behalf of the petitioners. This Court further finds that 05
persons namely, Parikha Prajapati, Umesh Prajapati, Ram
Naresh Prajapati, Kamesh Prajapati and Laxman Prajapati of
the Informant party sustained injuries during the occurrence
and P.Ws.- 2, 3, 4 (informant) and 5 are the injured eye
witnesses to the occurrence and the Doctor P.W.-1 has
corroborated that injuries were caused to all the five injured
persons.
21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
recorded concurrent finding of facts after properly considering
the entire evidences available on record including the medical
evidences and have held that, interalia, the petitioners
restrained the Informant party from going over the place of
occurrence land and caused injuries to five persons of the
Informant party during the occurrence. The learned court has
also considered the contradictions in the evidences and have
found the evidences of the eye witnesses, who were also the
victims of the crime, reliable.
22. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope
for re-appreciation of evidences calling for any interference in
revisional jurisdiction and the contradictions appearing in the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses are not material
contradictions to draw any conclusion of illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the
petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the
learned appellate court, is affirmed.
23. So far as the sentences of the petitioners are concerned,
this Court finds that both the parties were in litigating terms
with regard to the place of occurrence land and the occurrence
had arisen out of land dispute between them and the
occurrence is of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced the
rigors of the trial for more than 23 years.
24. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and also the
facts that the petitioners have remained in judicial custody for
some period during pendency of this criminal revision and that
at present the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are aged about 87
years, 82 years, 77 years and 44 years respectively as per the
their ages recorded on 10.08.2009 in the forms of statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that ends
of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners are
modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them
in judicial custody by imposing fines. There is no minimum
sentence, as such, prescribed for the offences under which the
petitioners have been convicted.
25. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners for the
offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code are
modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them
in judicial custody with fine of Rs. 500/- each and their
sentences for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code are modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by them in judicial custody with fine of Rs.10,000/-
each. No separate sentence has been passed by the learned
courts below for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code.
26. The aforesaid total fine amount of Rs.10,500/- each shall
be deposited by each petitioner before the learned trial court
within a period of two months from the date of communication
of a copy of this order to the learned trial court and the fine
amount, so deposited, shall be remitted to the victims of the
case namely, Parikha Prajapati, Umesh Prajapati, Ram Naresh
Prajapati, Kamesh Prajapati and Laxman Prajapati in equal
proportion after due identification. In case, the fine amount are
not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the learned trial
court shall cancel the bail-bonds of the petitioners and the
petitioners would serve the sentences as imposed by the
learned appellate court.
27. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and
modification in sentences of the petitioners, the present criminal
revision petition is hereby disposed of.
28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
29. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
