Indar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4338 Jhar

                                         1            Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.939 of 2003
        (Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated
        13.06.2003 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in
        Sessions Trial No.128 of 1993 / 111 of 2002)

               Indar Ram                               ...     Appellant
                                     Versus
               The State of Jharkhand                 ...     Respondent
                                      ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

---

               For the Appellant          : Mr. S.K. Murty, Advocate
               For the State              : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.

7/23.11.2021        This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction

and order of sentence dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.128 of 1993 / 111 of 2002, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months only for an offence under section 324 of the IPC.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the informant Sidheshwar Ram, whose statement was recorded at Nawadiha police station on 14.06.1992 at 8.30 hours by Nawadih O.P., Jamua, in the district-Giridih (Jharkhand). The allegations as set out in the said fardbeyan were that the informant Sidheshwar Ram along with his son Binod Ram was in a grocery shop and his granddaughter Bibha Kumari was sleeping in a cot in front of shop, the accused appellant Indar Ram along with other accused persons (who were also tried by the accused appellant but acquitted) came there, started pelting stones and caused injury to Bibha Kumari and the matter was reported to the police station at 4 pm on the same day 14.06.92. Bibha Kumari was examined by doctor at Sadar hospital, Giridih at 12.00 am on 15.06.92. Formal FIR was drawn and Investigation commenced.

3. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was transferred for disposal. Charges were framed against all the accused Indar Ram, Raghubir Ram, Bharat Ram, Ambika Ram and Brahma Devi u/s 337 and 147 IPC and Indar Ram-appellant was also charged 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

separately u/s 307 IPC, in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned trial court after conducting the trial, the sole appellant found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC and the accused appellant and other co-accused persons have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 337 and 147 of the IPC.

4. Heard Mr. Mr. S.K. Murty learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that not a single independent witness supported the prosecution case. All independent witnesses are declared hostile and evidence of the interested witnesses are contradictory to each other; It is further contended that on perusal of the First Information Report and evidence, no specific allegations against the appellant are made out and all allegations are general and vague. It is pointed out that the I.O. has not been examined in this case and hence, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. Learned defence counsel further contended that altogether seven witnesses have been examined and their versions are contradictory to each other and therefore they are not reliable.

It is also urged on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is otherwise bad in law and harsh against the weight of evidence and suffers from vice of non- application of mind of the court below and hence the same is vitiated in law and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.

It is further contended by learned defence counsel that the charges were framed against several persons including this accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 147 of IPC but the accused appellant has been additionally charged with the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC also. Learned trial court after conducting the trial, has acquitted the co-accused 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

persons namely Raghubir Ram, Bharat Ram, Ambika Ram and Brahma Devi and this accused-appellant have already been acquitted for the offences under Section 337 and 147 of the IPC, but this accused appellant Indar Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, which is under challenge by this accused appellant.

5. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contained that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Penal Code and awarded the sentence accordingly. It has further been submitted on behalf of the state that there is no legal point or substantive material to interfere in the impugned Judgement of conviction and the order of sentence. It has further been urged on behalf of the prosecution that the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution are legal evidences and the same have been rightly appreciated the evidences available on record by the learned trial court and found the guilt of the accused appellant punishable under Section 324 of the IPC as the witnesses have consistently and uniformly supported the case of the prosecution, by which, the victim child has sustained injury and who has also examined during the course of trial as PW - 2 Bibha Kumari, who had categorically stated that the accused appellant had pelted the stone, by which, she sustained injury and therefore the learned trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the sole accused-appellant under Section 324 of IPC and here there is no merit in the appeal and it is fit to be dismissed.

6. Having heard the parties perused the record of the case including the lower court records and other materials available on the record.

7. PW - 4 Sidheshwar Ram is said to be the informant in this case and he did not make any specific allegation, but he categorically stated that this accused appellant was holding stones / bricks in his hand, by which, the victim PW - 2 Bibha Kumari sustained injuries 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

and the doctor examined this victim, by which, it is found that the victim had sustained injuries, which has been marked as Ext.-2 which has prepared by P.W.7, the doctor who has been examined as P.W.7.

PW - 7 Dr. S.B. Choudhary examined the victim and had found one lacerated wound measuring 3"x 1" x bone deep with depressed fracture of right side of the frontal bone: diameter exposed. It has also been found by Dr. S.B. Choudhary PW -7 that the nature of injury was grievous in nature and fatal to life and caused by hard and blunt substance, such as by pelting stone and therefore the version of the doctor PW -7, who has examined and treated the victim PW- 2 Bibha Kumari corroborating the case of the prosecution As such this court does not found any irregularity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court below and the learned trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the injuries have been caused to the victim PW - 2 Bibha Kumari by sustaining the injuries of the stone / bricks pelted by the accused appellant and therefore the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 has been corroborated.

Further PW - 2 Bibha Kumari has also been examined and she categorically stated in unequivocal words that the stone was thrown upon her by the accused appellant and the injuries caused to her by this appellant are corroborated.

PW - 1 is Binod Ram, father of the victim Bibha Kumari and he has also supported the case of the prosecution, where he has stated in the cross-examination that it was the accused appellant, who had assaulted the victim by pelting the stone and nothing has been brought on record by the defence to contradict his statement also. PW - 3 Arjun Ram and PW - 6 Umesh Ram have been declared hostile. P.W.5 Hari Ram has also not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further found that I.O. in this case has not been examined and it is therefore strongly contended on behalf of the appellant that the whole prosecution case has been demolished 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

because the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has not been examined in this case. This court does not find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. It is well settled principle of law that the non- examination of Investigating Officer does not per se vitiate the trial as in the present case evidences of the eyewitness are in conformity with the case made out in the FIR and therefore non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution case and thus there are sufficient materials to sustain the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court in this case. As found in the foregoing paragraphs P.W.1 Binod Ram and P.W.4 informant Siddheswar Ram have explicitly deposed that the accused-appellant Indar Ram holding stones in his hand pelted stones upon the victim P.W.2 Vibha Kumari who sustained pelted stone injuries which have been corroborated by the doctor who has examined as P.W.7. The injured child Vibha Kumari has been examined as P.W.2 who candidly deposed that it was accused-appellant who assaulted her by pelting stones upon her by which she had sustained injuries.

8. In the backdrop, this Court having gone through the aforesaid discussions, it is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the entire evidences on record and found the accused appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

9. Accordingly this Court on the basis of the aforesaid findings upholds the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. It has been pointed out by learned defence counsel that the sole accused appellant Indar Ram was 17 years of age at the time of occurrence, which took place on 14.06.92, when he is said to be minor and therefore no purpose would be served, if he is sent to Jail again in this case. It has also been pointed out from the record that there is no criminal history against this appellant and this accused appellant has been facing mental agony and harassment of criminal proceeding since 1992 and it also appears that the accused appellant has already remained in jail for a period of about one month. Therefore it is just and fair to take a lenient view in awarding the sentence for a term of period already undergone.

6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) 939 of 2003

10. As such, the accused appellant Indar Ram is awarded sentence for a period already undergone and since the accused appellant Indar Ram is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.

11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in order of sentence as above.

12. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 23.11.2021/NAFR R.Kumar/-