Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Hazra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
(Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th
April, 2017, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII,
Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 127/2013, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case
No.421/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3780 of 2012 and T.R. No.649/2013)
1. Santosh Hazra
2. Baski Nath Hazra
3. Nandu Hazra
4. Doctor Hazra ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate .
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.02.2024
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 7th April, 2017, passed by
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in S.T.
No. 127/2013, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case
No.421/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3780/2012 and T.R.
No.649/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellants has been
convicted for the offence punishable under sections 323/34, 307/34
and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to
undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under section
323 of IPC, R.I. for one year for offence punishable under section 504
of IPC and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence
punishable under section 307 of IPC and in default of payment of
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months and further
directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution arose in the wake of written report of the
informant Madhav Mishra addressed to the Officer-in-charge,
Barwadda P.S. wherein the informant had stated that on 18.9.2012 at
about 1.30 P.M., while he along with his wife and two sons were
erecting the boundary wall over his plot of land measuring 3.25
kathas, then the accused persons came and asked them to stop the
work and it is alleged that they abused them and demanded Rs.5
lacs as Rangdari. When the informant expressed his inability to pay
such a huge amount, at the instance of Nandu Hazra, Santosh Hazra
assaulted the informant on his head with Gaita, due to which he
sustained injuries on his head and fell down. When his wife and
children tried to save him, other accused persons namely Doctor
Hazra and Baski Hazra assaulted them with rod, due to which they
also sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, it is alleged that the
accused persons took away Rs.20,000/- from the pocket of the
informant and one mobile. The informant was taken to police
station, from where he was sent for treatment to PMCH Hospital.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant
Madhav Mishra-PW-4, a formal FIR was drawn vide Govindpur P.S.
Case No.421 of 2012 dated 18.09.2012 registered under Sections 341,
323, 324, 307,386 504 and 34 of IPC and the investigation of the case
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
commenced.
4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O.
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 386, 504
and 34 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Dhanbad had framed the charge against all the charge-sheeted
accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections
341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 307/34, 386/34 & 504/34 on 25.04.2013 and
the trial of the case commenced and the learned trial court after
conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 7th April, 2017, which is
under challenge vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017.
5. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned defence counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Manoj Kumar Mishra,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that all the appellants do not want to argue
this case on merit of Judgment of conviction and therefore, the
argument is confined only on the point of sentence.
7. It is submitted that although the learned trial court framed the
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 323/34,
324/34, 307/34, 386/34, 504/34 of IPC, but the appellants were
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 307/34
and 504 /34 of the IPC and they were acquitted under Sections
341/34, 324/34, 386/34 of IPC and further they were sentenced to
undergo six months R.I. under Section 323 of IPC, one year R.I.
under Section 504 of IPC and seven years R.I. under Section 307 of
IPC and further each of the appellants were directed to pay the
sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of
fine, each of the appellants would further directed to undergo R.I.
for six months.
8. Further it is submitted that there is dispute between the parties
regarding the erecting of the boundary wall as they are neighbours
and these appellants have also instituted a case vide Govindpur
(Barwadda) P.S. Case No.436/2012 dated 02.10.2012 registered
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 500, 384, 504/34 of the IPC
and Sections 3 / 4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but the
police after completion of the investigation, submitted the final
report thereafter, on the basis of the protest petition, a Complaint
Case No. 241 of 2013 was instituted, under which, the concerned
learned Court below had taken the cognizance for the offences
punishable under sections 323, 341 & 504 of the IPC against the
informant of this case, including PW2 and PW4 and as such, there
was a case and counter case between both the parties.
9. Further, it has been submitted that the doctor has been
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
examined as PW5, who had examined the three injured persons
namely Kundan Kumar Mishra-PW2, Raghunandan Mishra-PW1
and Madhav Mishra-PW4, and the injuries inflicted upon PW1 and
PW2 were simple in nature, while the injuries of PW4 has been
found grievous in nature with respect to the injuries Nos. (I) and (II)
and in absence of any X-ray report, the opinion of the doctor that the
injury No.1 is grievous in nature, cannot be substantiated in view of
the fact that the injury report of the said Madhav Mishra exhibited
as 2/2, whereas it is written that there were 05 injuries and one was
lacerated wound and rest of the two were swelling in nature and
further the rest two only are the pain and as such in absence of the
X-ray report, the opinion of the doctor is not corroborated.
10. Further it has been pointed out that the occurrence is said to
have been taken place long back in the year 2012 about 12 years back
and over a period time, all these appellants have been suffering the
misery and hardship of the criminal prosecution for a long period
time.
11. Further it has been submitted that the appellant No.1 Santosh
Hazara has remained in jail for about more than two years,
appellant No.2 Baski Nath Hazara has remained in jail for about
three months and appellant No.3 Nandu Hazara has remained in jail
for about six months and appellant No.4 Doctor Hazara has
remained in jail for three months as per the record and there is
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
nothing on record to show about any criminal history against any
one of the appellants.
12. Further, it has also been submitted that all the appellants are
ready to pay the fine amount by way of compensation in order to
give to the injured PW-4 Madhav Mishra and therefore it is prayed
that after upholding the judgment of conviction, the order of
sentence may be modified to the period already undergone by the
appellants and a suitable sentence of fine may be imposed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
13. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State opposed the contentions raised on behalf o the appellants and
submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted all the
appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 307/34
and 504/34 of IPC and accordingly they were sentenced and therefore
there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence. However, the learned APP did not
controvert this fact that there is nothing on record about the criminal
history against any one of the appellants and also there is a case and
counter case between the parties and the dispute is related on a
trivial matter for the construction of the boundary wall as both the
parties are neighbor to each other and since the appellants do not
want to argue this case on merit and therefore after upholding the
judgment of conviction, a suitable order on the point of sentence
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
may be passed in view of the fact that the appellant No.1 Santosh
Hazara has remained in jail for about more than two years, appellant
No.2 Baski Nath Hazara has remained in jail for about three months
and appellant No.3 Nandu Hazara has remained in jail for about six
months and appellant No.4 Doctor Hazara has remained in jail for
three months.
14. Having heard learned counsels the parties, perused the records
of this case including the lower courts records.
Appraisal & Findings
15. It is found that all the four appellants have been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 323/34, 307/34 and 504/34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, R.I. for
one year for offence punishable under section 504 and R.I. for seven
years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence under section 307 of IPC
and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I.
for 6 months.
16. Further it is found that since the appellants do not want to
argue this case on merit of the Judgment of conviction and confining
their arguments only on the point of sentence.
17. Therefore, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction
dated 7th April, 2017 passed by learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 127/2013, arising out of
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.421/2012, corresponding to
G.R. No. 3780 of 2012 and T R. No.649/2013.
18. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, it is found that
there is a case and counter case between both parties. The injuries,
which are said to have been inflicted upon PW1 and PW2 are simple
in nature and so far as the injuries inflicted upon PW4 Madhav
Mishra is concerned, it is found that five injuries sustained by
him, which are as under:
(i) Lacerated wound on left side of parietal
occipital region 3"x1/2"x skin deep.
(ii) Swelling on left hand 2"x2"
(iii) Swelling right forearm 2"x 4"
(iv) Pain in left thigh
(v) Pain in neck
Age of injury within 6 hours
Nature of Injury No.(i) & (ii) are grievous in
nature and rest are simple in nature, caused by
hard & blunt object.
From the injuries report, it is found that one was lacerated
wound and two of the injuries were swelling in left hand and one on
right forearm and rest of the two injures, i.e. pain in left thigh and
neck are found simple in nature. Further it is also found that
although the doctor has opined about the injury with respect to the
lacerated wound on left side of parietal occipital region 3"x1/2"x
skin deep are grievous in nature but for want of X-ray report, the
same has not been substantiated by the prosecution during the
course of the trial and rest of the two injuries were swelling in
nature and further the rest two injuries were only the pain.
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
19. Further it is found that there is nothing on record to show
about the criminal history against any one of the appellants. Further
it is found that the occurrence had taken place as far back as in the
year 2012 about 12 years back and all the appellants have been
suffering with the trauma and hardship of the criminal case for a
long period of time and in this view of the matter, it is found just
and fair to modify the order of sentence passed by the learned court
below.
20. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 7th April, 2017,
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in S.T.
No. 127/2013, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case
No.421/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3780 of 2012 and T.R.
No.649/2013 is set-aside and the same is modified to the extent that
all the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by them and further they are sentenced to a fine of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants by way of
compensation in order to give to the PW- 4 Madhav Mishra and in
default of payment of fine, each of the appellants will undergo
further R.I. for a period of two years.
21. Since, the appellants above named are on bail and, therefore, a
period of four months' time is given to them from today to make
payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousands Only) by way of
compensation in order to give it to the injured-victim PW-4 Madhav
10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
Mishra.
22. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousands Only) by way compensation in order to
give it to victim-injured PW-4 Madhav Mishra, so awarded by this
Court within the stipulated period of time, each of the appellants
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
23. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine
amount be deposited by each of the appellants within the stipulated
period of time and in default of payment of fine, each of the
appellants will serve the sentence as awarded by this Court, by
taking all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure
that the appellants serve the sentence of imprisonment in case of
default of payment of fine.
24. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and at the moment,
they deposit the fine amount, they (the appellants) shall be released
forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and they shall be
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly.
25. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the
said fine amount by the appellants, the notice shall be sent to the
victim PW-4 Madhav Mishra and on his appearance, the said fine
amount, if so deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to him.
26. In case, if the said victim is not traceable or not available or not
11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017
found at the given address, or does not present before the Court
after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the close or near
relatives or kith and kin of the said victim-injured as the concerned
learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this regard the
court concerned may also involve the Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) of
District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Dhanbad, if required.
27. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below
along with the Lower Court Records for its compliance in letters and
spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 19.02.2024/NAFR
R.Kumar/-
