Ranjeet Goswami vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3 Jhar

                                        1              Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.991 of 2004

        (Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence 02.06.2004
        passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 75 of
        2002 arising out of Nirsa- Kalubathan P.S.case No.51 of 2001, G.R. Case
        No.957 of 2001, Dhanbad, Jharkhand)

               Ranjeet Goswami                          ...     Appellant
                                     Versus
               The State of Jharkhand                  ...    Respondent
                                      ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

---

               For the Appellant          : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate
               For the State              : Mr. Manoj Mishra, A.P.P.

4/03.01.2022        This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction

and order of sentence dated 02.06.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 75 of 2002, whereby the sole accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence u/s 324 of IPC failing which the accused-appellant shall undergo S.I. for 3 months.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of written report of Probhodh Goswami alleging therein that on 06.04.01 at about 9.30 am, he was sitting outside the house of Chitranjan Goswami along with his cousin Kartic Goswami. In the meantime, the accused Ranjeet Goswami accosted them with a sword and alleged that they were gossiping about him. The informant refuted the allegation. However, accused Ranjeet Goswami assaulted the informant by sword causing hurt on the left hand and neck of the informant.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a formal FIR was lodged and the case was registered under Section 324 and 307 of IPC against the sole accused appellant and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case under Sections 324/307 of IPC and on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

explained to him and denied the allegation levelled against him and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, the senior learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Manoj Mishra, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law. It is contended that learned trial court did not consider that although the occurrence allegedly took place at 9.30 am in the village in the month of April, but no witness of the village came forward to support the prosecution case, except the close relatives. It is further contended that the appellant was a patient of mental ailment, which fact was amply proved by the investigating officer and corroborated by DW-1, but it could also not be considered by the learned court below and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is fit to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contended that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence, accordingly there is no merit in the appeal and it is fit to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the parties and after going through the records, it is found that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the sole accused appellant, the prosecution has been able to examine eight witnesses, out of which, PW - 7 Dr. J.N. Prasad Prakash, who had examined the injured and PW - 8 Sri R.B. Kumar is the I.O. of the case. The another witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were PW - 1 Kartic Goswami, PW - 2 Shekhar Goswami, PW - 3 Devendra Nath Goswami, PW - 4 Chitranjan Goswami, PW - 5 Hardhan Goswami and PW - 6 Prabodh Kumar Goswami (informant).

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

On the other hand the defence witnesses DW - 1 Ganesh Goswami has also been examined on behalf of the sole appellant, who is the brother of the sole appellant Ranjeet Goswami.

8. Having gone through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution PW - 1 Kartik Goswami in para 1 and 2, PW - 3 Devendra Nath Goswami in para 1 and PW - 5 Hardhan Goswami in para 2 and PW - 6 Prabodh Kumar Goswami (informant) in para - 1 & 2 in their depositions had consistently and uniformly stated that there has been altercation between the parties on the date, time of the occurrence and the accused have brought sword from his house, assaulted the informant Prabodh Kumar Goswami by sword causing him injured on the left hand and the neck. The aforesaid versions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are found to be reliable and trustworthy in the light of cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defence, who has failed to take out any substantive material to discard their reliability and truthfulness with respect to the alleged assault on the injured informant.

9. The injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured by the sole appellant has also been substantiated by the doctor, who has been examined as PW - 7 Doctor J.N. Prasad. The said doctor has proved the injury report, which has been marked as Ext. 2. He had stated that he had examined PW - 6 Prabodh Goswami on 06.04.2001 at about 10.50 am finding the following injuries on the person of the injured, which are as follows:-

i. Incised wound over left forearm size 2 ½" x 1/2'' x skin deep above left wrist joint.

ii. Incised wound over left side of neck size 5"x1/2"x skin deep.

The aforesaid injuries found on the informant have substantiated the allegations made in the FIR, where the informant PW - 6 had alleged that the sole accused appellant Ranjeet Goswami had assaulted him by sword causing him injured on left hand and neck. As a matter of fact, it is found that the testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are falling in line 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

with the statement of the informant as set-out in the fardbeyan, which is ext. - 1.

Further the I.O. PW - 8 has been examined and he has proved the place of occurrence, which has taken place on the road and no inconsistency is found with respect to the place, date and time of occurrence, vis-à-vis the testimony of the witnesses examined along with the doctor PW - 7.

It is found that the learned trial court had rightly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses and found that the no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out and accordingly the sole accused appellant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Further the learned defence counsel has pointed out that the injuries, which are said to have been inflicted upon the injured victim PW - 6 is simple in nature, as categorically evident from Ext.

- 2 and the testimony of the doctor PW - 7 and further no lethal weapon, i.e. sword alleged to have been used in causing assault has been recovered, therefore the case of the prosecution that causing injuries by the dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 324 of IPC is not made out. This court finds force in the submission advanced by the learned defence counsel that in the absence of the recovery of the weapon alleged to have been used in causing injuries upon the informant PW - 6, the case of the prosecution that the said injury was caused by the lethal weapon sword is not substantiated inasmuch as the injuries found are simple in nature as deposed by the doctor P.W.- 7.The nature of injuries, although, it is found on the neck and hand, but it was simple in nature and not fatal, as evident from Ext. - 2, which is injury report and duly proved by the doctor PW - 7.

Further the defence taken on behalf of the sole appellant that the weapon used in the alleged offence has not been produced and the defence could not get the opportunity to ask the question from the doctor PW - 7 during the course of cross-examination in the trial as to whether such injuries have been caused by sword or not, and 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

hence the accused-appellant has been debarred in the absence of seizure of sword and therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the nature of weapon used in the alleged offence and therefore the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC that the injuries caused by dangerous weapons or means remains unproved, although the injuries are established and that is simple in nature, as per the testimonies of the witnesses, vis-à-vis Ext - 2, which is injury report and duly proved by the witness PW - 7, the doctor.

10. Therefore, this court alters the conviction of the sole accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC to the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and accordingly the sole accused appellant is found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC by setting aside the conviction under Section 324 of IPC as awarded by the learned trial court.

11. Further it is found that the defence was taken on behalf of the sole appellant was of his unsoundness of mind, which has been nicely appreciated by the learned trial court in its judgment and the learned trial court has rightly discarded the General Exception of insanity within the meaning of section 84 of the IPC , which was taken by the sole appellant as a defence, but learned trial court has held after appreciating the testimonies of the DW - 1, vis-à-vis, the exhibits, which has been brought on record on behalf of the defence vide Exts.-A, B and C series, which are the medical prescriptions, by which, it is found that the sole accused appellant has been the patient of mental illness. It has also been supported and corroborated in the testimonies of PW - 8, who is the I.O. and he categorically stated in his depositions vide para - 9 and 10 of the cross-examination, by which, it appears that the sole accused appellant had been under treatment in the Navjeevan Medical Hospital, Kulti and in this view of the matter, it is found that the sole accused appellant had been suffering with mental illness.

Further it is also found that the occurrence is of the year 2001, i.e. of 6.04.2001 and this sole accused appellant has been suffering with mental agony and the harassment of criminal proceeding since 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ).991 of 2004

more than 20 years and therefore, it is just and fair to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence after finding the sole accused appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.

It appears from the record that the sole accused appellant has already remained in jail for about one month and therefore no purpose would be served under the circumstances of the case in sending the sole accused appellant again in jail and it is found just and fair to award the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and to impose a sentence of fine by way of compensation to be given to the injured informant Prabodh Kumar Goswami to a sum of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only).

Since the accused appellant is on bail, he is given three months' time from the date of this judgment to pay the fine by way of compensation to be given to the informant Prabodh Goswami and in case of default of payment of fine by way of compensation; the sole accused appellant shall go under S.I. for three months. The said fine amount may be deposited in the Government Exchequer through the concerned Nazarat of the Civil Court The concerned court below is directed to ensure that the fine amount so deposited by the sole accused-appellant is paid to the informant Prabodh Kumar Goswami (P.W.6) by serving proper notice to him and if the said victim informant Prabodh Kumar Goswami (P.W.6) is not found /available, nearest kith and kin be given the said compensation amount. In case of default of payment of fine the concerned trial court is directed to take all necessary efforts as per the law to ensure that accused-appellant serves the sentence of imprisonment as awarded in case of default of payment of fine.

12. In the backdrop, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as above.

13. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below for its compliance.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 03.01.2022/NAFR R.Kumar/-