Jharkhand High Court
Lakhindra Hembrom @ Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2022
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1147 of 2018
---
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed
by District & Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 2017.
---
Lakhindra Hembrom @ Manjhi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anita Devi ... ... Respondents
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. M.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
By Court: Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by District & Addl. Sessions
Judge-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 2017 whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that Harla P.S. Case No.116 (G.R. No.1424 of 2016)
has been lodged by the informant under Sections 304, 316, 341 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant.
4. The police, after investigation, has submitted charge sheet
under the above Sections, but charge has been framed only under
Sections 316 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced
for the period already undergone as he has remained in custody for about
four months.
6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
altogether eight witnesses.
7. The witnesses have stated that there was love affairs between
the parties. Further, witnesses have supported the fact that there was
altercation between the victim and the appellant. The victim was
pressurizing the appellant for the purpose of marriage. She has been
beaten and subsequently, she has succumbed to injury. Post mortem
report substantiate the factum of injury. Considering the above, he has
been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
8. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that there is
discrepancy in the deposition of the I.O. and the witnesses. Further cause
of the death has not been ascertained in the post mortem report. On the
above basis, conviction has been assailed.
9. Counsel for the State has supported the order of conviction and
it has been submitted that the injury has been substantiated in the post
mortem report. Further, I.O. has seen the place of occurrence of assault
and considering the entire circumstances of the case, the appellant has
been convicted only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it appears that there was eye witness of assault upon the
victim. The medical evidence also substantiate that there is external
injury, which is ante mortem in nature.
Considering the above fact, he has been convicted for the
offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Thus, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of the sentence passed by the court
below.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 3rd day of November, 2022
Ravi/NAFR/
