Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1655 of 2003
------
1. Prakash Sah
2. Budho Sah @ Mani Ram Sah ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vinay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 09: Dated: 21st December, 2021
Learned counsels for the parties are present.
An affidavit has been field on behalf of the appellant by which it
appears that the appellant no. 1- Sitlal Sah and the appellant no. 4- Birjan
Sah have died in the year 2017 & 2005 respectively and rest of the
appellants i.e. appellant nos. 2- Prakash Sah & 3 - Budho Sah @ Mani
Ram Sah are alive and they are residing at the respective places.
The death certificate of the deceased appellants have also been field
along with the affidavit by which it appears that the said two of the four
appellants have expired and the learned defense counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that no close relative has come forward to
continue this appeal on behalf of deceased appellants and let this appeal
be abetted with respect to the appellant nos. 1 & 4 and accordingly it gets
abated with respect to appellant nos. 1 & 4 and let their name be deleted
from the cause title of memo of appeal.
Learned defense counsel on behalf of the rest of the appellants nos.
2- Prakash Sah and appellant no. 3- Budho Sah @ Mani Ram Sah,
submitted that both these rest appellants were convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 324/34 of IPC and after taking into totality of the facts
and circumstances of this case the appellants were directed to be released
on probation of good conduct and on furnishing a security bond of Rs.
2000/- each with two sureties of like amount to maintain peace for two
years and to be of good behavior along with the other conditions u/s 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act instead of awarding the sentence and
therefore, the learned defence counsel has fairly submitted on behalf of
both the appellants that the period of two years has already lapsed and
there is nothing on record to show any report with respect to their
adverse behaviour and, therefore, he does not want to argue on the point
of judgment of conviction.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State also submitted that let this
appeal be dismissed in the light of the submission on behalf of the
surviving appellant who have already crossed the period of probation of
good conduct awarded by the learned court below instead of awarding
the sentence.
Having gone through the contentions of both the parties it is found
that admittedly it is a case between the parties who are closely related to
each other and they are descendants of the common ancestor. It is also
admitted fact that there was a landed property dispute between both the
sides. During the course of the trial both the parties have entered into a
compromise and the matter was resolved once and for all between them
as has been rightly observed by the learned trial court in para 14 of the
impugned judgment which reads as under:
Para 14 : "Thus from a careful scrutinization and meticulous
appreciation of the combined evidences, it is crystal clear that an occurrence
of assault has taken place in which the informant P.W. 3 was severely
assaulted by the accused persons with lethal weapons which gets
substantiated and corroborated with the testimony of doctor (P.W. 4) and
furthermore, the other witnesses, namely , P.Ws. 1 & 2 being the relatives of
the informant have also given true account of the occurrence corroborating
the version of informant regarding the manner of occurrence. Thus, due to
minor discrepancies and infirmities appearing in their cross-examination,
the whole testimony cannot be brushed aside if the same is otherwise proved
to be cogent and natural in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, I think that the non-examination of I.O. has not caused any
prejudice to the defence in view of the clear and cogent evidence of natural
witnesses regarding the alleged occurrence of assault. It is well settled that
for offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC the prosecution has to prove that
the accused has done an act with such a guilty intention (one of the three
kinds of intention specified in section 300 of I.P.C.) and no less, in such
circumstances that, but for some intervening fact the act would have
amounted to murder in the normal course of evidence. Further from the
medical evidence, it is nowhere established that the doctor has given any
information regarding the injury that the injuries inflicted to the injured
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also not
clear that, had the injured not been operated upon, in all probability that he
would have succumbed to his injury. The mere fact, therefore, that the
accused persons used lethal weapons and multiple injuries were caused in
the leg, hand and head of the injured but in absence of definite opinion of the
doctor regarding injuries, it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the
accused did intend to cause the death of victim-informant. The intention can
be gathered from the nature of the weapons, the parts of the body where
injury is inflicted and the opportunity available which the accused gets. It is
also well settled that where 4 or 5 persons using deadly weapons cause
several simple injuries and one grievous hurt then no conviction can be
sustained u/s 307 of the I.P.C. The medical evidence does not disclose the
fact that the injury inflicted on the informant would cause permanent
disfiguration of the head or that it endangered his life. The injured having
died, it was not clear whether it would cause the sufferer to be during the
space of 20 days in severe bodily pain for enable to follow his ordinary
pursuits. However, weapon used was dangerous instrument for cutting
which, if used as weapon of offence was likely to cause death. Therefore, in
that aspect of the matter, I find that the accused persons being the members
of the same family having shared with common intention, have caused hurt
voluntarily by dangerous weapons or means on the informant which come
under the purview of section 324 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. but not
u/s 307 of the same. Therefore, I hold them guilty for the offence committed
under section 324/34 of the I.P.C."
This Court does not find any irregularities in the appreciation of
the judgment of conviction and the order of probation imposed by the
learned court below and, therefore, this court upholds the judgment of
conviction and so far as the sentence is concerned, learned court below
instead of awarding sentence has released the appellants on the
probation of good conduct and on furnishing a security bond of Rs.
2000/- each with two sureties of like amount to maintain peace for two
years and to be of good behavior along with the other conditions u/s 4 of
the Probation of Offenders. The time period of two years of probation
period time has already been elapsed and, therefore, this appeal gets
dismissed in the light of the contentions advanced by the learned defence
counsel that the appellants do not want to continue this appeal
furthermore and the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants did not argue this appeal on merit and on the point of the
judgment of conviction.
As a consequence, this appeal gests disposed of as above.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
