Mini Bala Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5016 Jhar

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                       Acq. Appeal (S.J.) No.62 of 2022
                                             ....

                Mini Bala Rajwar                                        ....    Appellant
                                             Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Sumitra Rajwar
                3. Parmeshwar Rajwar                                     .... Respondents
                                             ....
                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Appellant               : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
                For the State                   : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
                                                ....

03/12.12.2022             Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of part acquittal dated 23.07.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in S.T. Case No.452 of 2017.

It appears that on 18.10.2016 at about 5 PM, when the informant was sitting in her courtyard, the accused persons armed with axe has entered into the house and assaulted the informant party with fist, slap and axe. On that basis, Kamalpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2016 has been lodged under Sections 323/ 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/34 of IPC. The police have submitted charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed under Sections 323/ 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/34 of IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

To examine the prosecution story, altogether 12 witnesses have been examined.

P.W.-1, Nilmani Rajwar @ Lilmani Rajwar, P.W.-2 is the Tapanand Gope, P.W.-3 is Ashok Rajwar, P.W.-4 is Dr. Chirstapher Besra, P.W.-5 is Minibala Rajwar (informant), P.W.- 6 is Harekrishan Rajwar, P.W.-7 is Asadh Rajwar, P.W.-8 is Sudhir Rajwar, P.W.-9 is Budan Soren, (I.O.), P.W.-10 is Awadesh Kumar (Part I.O. of this case), P.W.-11 is Manoj Kumar Rajwar and P.W.-12 is Ranjan Rajwar.

The defence has also examined one witness as D.W.-1 Naresh Das to prove the disability of the accused-Parmeshwar Rajwar.

From deposition of the witnesses, it appears that there is a land dispute between the parties and they are nearby relatives also.

Although they have supported the incident but no corroboration of the incident has come from the material evidence. This fact has been considered in detail by the court below in para-21 of the impugned order.

Para-21 is quoted hereinbelow:

"21. From the evidences as brought on the record by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that both the parties belong to same family and there is land dispute and enmity in between them since long. The witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution in their evidence and have clearly stated that the accused persons had assaulted the informant by means of Axe due to land dispute. However, PW-3 has specifically stated that the accused Permeshwar Rajwar had assaulted the informant by means of back portion of the axe but it is surprising that the doctor has found injury on the person of informant caused by sharp cut weapon. It is also surprising that the doctor has submitted an additional report as final report which shows that he has submitted this report on a plain paper on 11-10-2016 whereas the injured had been examined on 18-10-2016 at first at CMC, Patmada. This circumstance clearly shows that the doctor has prepared a false injury report only with a view to make the injury grievous in nature in collusion with the informant. This final injury report has been made on the basis of X-ray report but the prosecution has neither produced X-ray plate nor its report which creates a serious doubt to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the doctor Christapher Besra has found injuries on the person of the informant and all the witnesses including the informant have clearly stated that the accused persons had assaulted the informant on the day of occurrence due to land dispute and enmity. However, it is also evident that the accused Parmeshwar Rajwar is a handicapped person and he cannot hold any article from his right hand then it is difficult to say that he had assaulted the informant with intention to kill her as he might have used his left hand to assault the injured. The doctor has also not found any injury which is sufficient to cause death in normal circumstance. As such, section 307 IPC is not attracted against the accused persons. There is also no sufficient evidence against the accused persons to connect them for the offence u/s 324/341/342 IPC but there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons that they had assaulted the informant on the day of occurrence in furtherance of common intention due to land dispute and enmity and as such, they are certainly found guilty for the charge u/s 323/34 of the IPC as levelled against them."

Thus, after evaluating the evidence, the court below has found that the witnesses have exaggerated the incident for obvious purpose but the medical evidence negates the exaggeration. Considering the above facts, the appellant has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 307/ 324/ 341 and 342 of IPC and convicted only under Section 323/34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order mainly on the ground that there is sufficient oral testimony justifying the accusation and merely because they are close relatives and there are also some discrepancies in the medical report the testimony of the oral witness could not have been thrown out. It is settled law that the oral testimony overrides the medical evidence if they are in conflict. On above basis, the judgment of acquittal has been challenged.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the entire materials available on record have been properly evaluated by the court below. Evaluation of the evidence cannot be interfered by the appellate court unless until it is perverse. In the present case, oral testimony vis a vis medical evidence has been properly evaluated and it has been found that there is some manipulation in the medical evidence. The reason for exaggerating the incident is quite obvious as both the parties are co-related and the cause of scuffle is the land dispute between the parties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that all the witnesses have supported the incident which has been accepted by the court below to the effect that there was scuffle between the parties but so far as sustaining the conviction under Sections 327/ 307/ 341 and 342 of IPC is concerned, the injury is one of the ingredients. The court below has found that there is manipulation in the injury report made by the Doctor and in the absence of any injury, the court below has found that there is no sufficient material to convict the appellant under Sections 324/ 341/ 342 and 307 of IPC. Accordingly they have been convicted for Section 323/34 of IPC and has been given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Considering the above facts and perusing the testimony of the witnesses, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/