Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1122 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2004 and the order of
sentence dated 25.05.2004, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC-III, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1996)
1. Arjun Manjhi
2. Chhatish Manjhi
3. Mukund Manjhi
4. Sumran Manjhi
5. Deo Narayan Manjhi
6. Delip Manjhi @ Dilip Kr. Manjhi ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
--------
16/ 10.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 24.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated 25.05.2004,
passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Godda, in
Sessions Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307
read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate
sentence is awarded under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.07.1993 at about 7
to 8 A.M. when the informant was irrigating his land appellant No.3 raised
objection and closed the flow of water which resulted altercation between
the parties. In the meantime, other accused persons came there and
assaulted the informant and one of the accused (now deceased) fired with
country made pistol at informant which caused injury. It is alleged that the
appellant no.4 also fired with his pistol upon the son of the informant
which caused injury in his stomach. Upon hearing the alarm, the family
members of the informant reached at the place of occurrence and the
appellants fled away towards their houses.
4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the appellants submits
that the main allegation of fire is against one Sohan Yadav but he died
during pendency before the trial court proceeding itself and another
allegation, if any, for fire arm was against the appellant No.4- Sumran
Manjhi. So far as other appellants are concerned, no overt act has been
alleged or proved against them. He further submits that from the entire
prosecution case it appears that the manner of occurrence was sudden
altercation due to irrigating the filed. As such, so far as Section 307 IPC is
concerned the same will not be applicable against any of the accused
person because the occurrence took place after sudden altercation.
He lastly submits that so far as Sumran Manjhi is concerned, he
remained in jail for 3 ½ years which is evident from the order passed by
this Court while granting him bail.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of acquittal and submits that
the prosecution has proved the case and admittedly Sumran Manjhi as well
as Sohan Yadav fired with their respective pistols.
Though Sohan Yadav died during trial but Sumran Manjhi cannot be
acquitted for his overt act as he fired, however, learned APP fairly submits
that Sumran Manjhi remained in custody for 3 ½ years, as such if the
sentence is modified some fine must be imposed as the offence are
grievous in nature.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on the LCR it appears that prosecution
has examined altogether six witnesses wherein P.W. 4 was Doctor and
P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 are the relatives of the informant and P.W. 3 is informant
himself. So far as single independent witness who has been examined as
P.W. 5 has been declared hostile.
It further transpires that the I.O. has not been examined in this
case so as to prove who was aggressor.
However, it is evident from the deposition of the doctor P.W. 4
that the injury was caused by fire arm within 12 hours and its nature was
simple. Thus, it cannot be said that the use of arms was absent but at the
same time this Court cannot ignore the fact that the allegation of using
pistol was against Sumran Manjhi and Sohan Yadav as stated herein above.
Sohan Yadav died during trial itself.
7. It further transpires from the record that there was some
dispute on the ground of taking water from Samla Bandh and when one of
the party obstructed, altercation started. Thus, this Court is having no
hesitation in holding that there was no pre planning of murder of any of the
accused except appellant No.4. As such, all the appellant except Sumran
Manjhi deserves to be acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC.
8. Now coming to the charge of Section 307 of the IPC against
appellant No.4, it is evident that the allegation is only against appellant
No.4 and one Sohan Yadav who died during trial itself, as such the
conviction of Sumran Manjhi with respect to Section 307 of the IPC has
been proved and the same is hereby sustained.
9. So far as other offences for which all the appellants were
charged and convicted, looking to the evidences and deposition of the
prosecution witnesses who have considerably proved the charge for Section
147 & 148 of the IPC against all the appellants, as such the conviction for
these sentences are hereby sustained.
10. Taking into consideration of mitigating circumstances, I am of
the considered view that without interfering with the judgment of
conviction as modified herein above with respect to all the appellants
except appellant No.4 who also remained in custody for 3½ years, the
sentence ought to be modified to the extent that the appellants shall be
released for the period already undergone but subject to payment of fine of
Rs.5,000/- each.
11. As a result, the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court is
hereby modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced for the
period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
12. It is made clear that the appellants shall pay the aforesaid fine
of Rs.5,000/- each, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order before the D.L.S.A., Godda; failing which they shall
serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court.
13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
14. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Godda and also to the appellants through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
16. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
