Jharkhand High Court
Gomasta Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 658 of 2005
---------
Gomasta Soren ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
WITH
Cr. Revision No. 723 of 2005
---------
Jogeshwar Marandi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioners : Md. Syed Ramiz Zafar, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. M. K. Mishra, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 01.05.2023 Pronounced on 28.08.2023
Heard the parties.
2. Both these criminal revision applications arise out of same
impugned judgment passed by Sri Raj Kumar Tuli, learned 1st Assistant
Sessions Judge, Pakur, accordingly, both these criminal revision
applications are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The petitioners have filed this criminal revision application
against the judgment dated 10.05.2005, passed by Sri Udai Narayan
Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2004,
whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, dismissed the
appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 30.04.2004 passed by Sri Raj Kumar Tuli, learned 1st
Assistant Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Sessions Case
No.268/1997 arising out of Pakudia P.S. Case No.13 of 1997, holding the
petitioners guilty of offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo S.I. for seven years
alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they were
further directed to undergo S.I. for one year.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of
the informant namely Labodi Tudu alleging therein that on 06.05.1997 at
about 6:00 AM, he was going to take bath in Salga Dam alongwith Barsan
Marandi. While taking bath, petitioners and other co-accused persons also
came there. Co-accused Danial Marandi assaulted him by lathi due to
which he sustained injury on head and another parts of the body.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. On the basis of evidence available on the record,
both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have
come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
6. From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that the informant Labodi Tudu has been examined
as P.W.5. He has stated that on 06.05.1997 at about 6:00 AM, he
alongwith Barsan Marandi had gone to Salga Dam to take bath. In the
meantime, the petitioners Jogesh Marandi, Danial Marandi, Tukai
Marandi and Gomasta Soren also came there. Danial assaulted him by a
lathi, subsequently Jogesh also assaulted him by Sabal. The other co-
accused persons were keeping watch to see whether anybody is coming.
He further stated that he sustained injury on head and one of his tooth was
uprooted. He has identified the petitioners in the dock.
7. In his cross-examination, he stated that he lost consciousness and
he gained consciousness after three days. He had denied that the dam
belonged to petitioner Jogeshwar Marandi. He has further stated that apart
from the accused persons, nobody else was present at the place of
occurrence.
8. Barsan Marandi P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case and
stated that on the date of occurrence between 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, he
went with Labodi Tudu to take bath in Salga Dam. He has stated that the
petitioners alongwith other co-accused persons came there. Co-accused
Danial Marandi had assaulted him by lathi and petitioners had assaulted
him by a sabal, he has identified the petitioners in the dock. In his cross-
examination, he stated that apart from him and Labodi Tudu, no one else
was present at the place of occurrence.
9. Mosih Marandi P.W.2, has stated that he had seen the occurrence
and the petitioners and co-accused persons have assaulted Labodi Tudu.
Considering the fact that both Labodi Tudu and Barsan Marandi have
stated that apart from them nobody else was present at the spot. Evidence
of this witness does not appear to be reliable.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Mehrotra P.W.6 has examined Labodi Tudu, he
has stated that on 06.05.1997, he has examined Labodi Tudu and found
the following injuries as follow on his person:-
(1) Patient was semi conscious.
(2) On scalp injury:-
(i) Right side parietal area 3"x 1/2"x 1/2" lacerated wound.
(ii) Right Occipitic parietal area in different direction. (1)
1"x 1/2" x 1/2" (2) 1 1/ 2 " x 1/2" (3) 2" x 1/2" x 1/2".
(3) Upper lip: - Punctured wound - tear- from out to inner in different
directions.
(i) Below nose - 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4".
(ii) On nose- lower cut injury 1/2"x 1/2"x 1/4" in maxillary area.
(4) Lower jaw or mandibular area: Punctured wound
(i) Upper - from outside to inside 1/2" x 1/2" up to jaw bone.
(ii) Middle - from outside to inside - 1' x 1/2" x 1/2"
(iii) Lower - from outside to inside - 1" x 1/2" x 1/2".
On lower jaw- may be chances of fracture of mandible bone with
teeth loose.
There was fracture on mandible and some teeth were missing. He
has proved the injury report, which is Exhibit 6.
10. From the perusal of the injury report, it transpires that the
finding of Dr. Sushil Kumar Mehrotra in the injury report showing that
there was fracture on mandible of Labodi Tudu and some teeth were
missing, corroborates his oral account in the court recorded during the
trial.
It is apparent from the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence that
both Labodi Tudu and Barsan Marandi have corroborated each other on
the point that the petitioners had assaulted Labodi Tudu due to which
Labodi Tudu sustained injury on his jaw and some of teeth were also
uprooted. He had also sustained injury on his scalp. These injuries are on
the vital part of the body. Repeated blows were inflicted on the person of
Labodi Tudu.
11. Accordingly, I come to a finding that the prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the petitioners for committing the offence
under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Accordingly, judgment of conviction holding the petitioners
guilty of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
The occurrence took place in the year 1997. The petitioners have not been
convicted in any other case. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the
learned trial court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced
to R.I. for five years. Period already undergone by the petitioners in
custody during trial is set off.
13. Both these criminal revision applications are partly allowed.
14. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
15. Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Md.
Syed Ramiz Zafar, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this
Court in adjudicating these cases. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed
to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered
by him.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
