Jharkhand High Court
Amar Laguri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 242 of 2020
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2020 and order of sentence dated
31.01.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T.
No. 189 of 2015)
-----
1. Amar Laguri
2. Putkar Hessa
3. Sikandar Balmuchu
4. Satari Khandait
5. John Miran Munda ... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Respondent
PRES ENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : M/s Manoj Kr. Choubey & Jayant Kr. Pandey, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP
-----
By Court :
Heard the parties
1. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 147, 148, 427/149
and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant appeal.
2. Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer is the informant of the case. As per
FIR, he was deputed to maintain law and order in ACC cement plant of Chaibasa.
Agitators were bent upon stopping water supply to the plant. Water supply was
stopped which was resumed shortly, and thereafter they again stopped the supply. On
18.06.2015 water supply was resumed against which an unlawful assembly gathered
to take control of the pump house and disrupt the water supply. At 4.30 p.m an
unlawful assembly of 150-200 persons variously armed with lathi, danda and other
traditional arms attacked the police party and tried to take control of the pump house.
Females were put forward and the male members resorted to brick batting and
instigating from the rear side. In the said attack police personnel were injured.
3. On the basis of written report Tonto PS Case No. 16 of 2015 was registered against
altogether against 36 named accused persons and 100 to 150 unknown persons.
Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet under Sections
147/148/149/307/337/427/353/120B of the Indian Penal Code against six persons
including these appellants. After cognizance, charges were framed and the appellants
were put on trial.
4. Altogether thirteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the
relevant documents including the injury reports were adduced into evidence, marked
as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants have been
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence.
5. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed merely on the basis
of conjecture and surmises. All the witnesses examined are official witnesses and no
independent witness has been examined. Further, it is said that the door of the pump
house was damaged but nothing has been seized. John Miran Munda was not even
present in the unlawful assembly as per deposition of PW 1 in para 22. PWs 6 to 9
are injured witnesses but injury report do not corroborate the testimony regarding
injury sustained by them and they have stated that their statement was not recorded
by the police.
6. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence and submitted that injured witnesses have fully supported the
case and they have deposed that these appellants, by forming unlawful assembly, in
order to block water supply to ACC cement company, attacked the police party in
which they sustained injury for which they were treated in Sadar Hospital. Appellants
are named in the FIR and were arrested on spot there is direct evidence against them
that they were part of the unlawful assembly which disrupted water supply to the
cement company, and when police went there to clear the unlawful assembly, they
attacked the police party.
7. Prove of a fact depends on „probability test‟ as laid down in Section 3 of the
Evidence Act which reads as under.
Proved-- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters
before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so
probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstance of the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Degree of probability required for proof in a criminal case is that of beyond
reasonable doubt. Definition is not technical and depends prove depends on
In order to ascertain the veracity of the testimony of the witnesses not only need
to be consistent but also should be consistent with the common experience of the
mankind and natural course of human conduct. Statement of the witnesses is to
be appreciated in the "circumstance of the particular case". Every case has its
own peculiar feature and appreciation of evidence cannot be made divorced from
the context in which it is made. There is a time gap between the actual incidence
and the time when such deposition is made before a Court of law. There is bound
to be some inconsistency between the deposition of a witness and the statement
given to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Each inconsistency is by
itself not sufficient to throw out a prosecution case. Only such contradictions
which are vital in nature and are irreconcilable with the prosecution case that it
will be discarded.
8. In the present case, FIR was registered by the Block Development Officer-cum-
Circle Officer on the very same day of the incidence without any delay. The
informant (PW-1) has deposed that on 17.06.2015 an attempt was made by protesters
to stop the water supply. On receiving this information from the officer in charge of
the Police station he went there. They tried to reason with the mob, and requested
them to allow uninterrupted water supply in the mining area. Without paying any
heed to the entreaties made, the agitators stopped water supply. It was on the letter of
the Director of the Company that administration had to intervene to remove the
protestors. Agitators informed him, that it has been conveyed by John Miran Munda
that so long as their demands are not met, water supply will not be resumed. A
demand was made for release of the four persons who had been taken into judicial
custody. It has been deposed by this witness that John Miran Munda had played a
leading role in precipitating the trouble. At around 4.30 the unlawful assembly of 150
to 200 persons armed with deadly weapon in order to stop the water supply attacked
the Police party. Police used light force in self-defence. Police constable Suresh
Manki was injured by the shot of arrow. In the scuffle that took place uniform of
some of the police personnel was torn. Five persons arrested on spot were Amar
Laguri, Putkar Hessa, Sikandar Balmuchu,Satari Khandait and Baunj
Balmuchu.
Testimony of other witnesses are also on the same line. More particularly the
evidence of the injured witnesses who have been examined as PW-6 to PW-9. It is
settled law that the testimony of injured witness is to be accorded a higher degree of
credence. All these witnesses were injured in the incidence is corroborated by the
testimony of the Doctor (PW-10) who examined them on the very same day. PW-6
has deposed that villagers had resorted to stone pelting in which they sustained injury
and were treated in the Sadar Hospital Chaibasa. These witnesses have candidly
admitted that their statements were not recorded by the Police and they did not know
personally the name of the investigating officer. None of these witnesses have named
any of the accused persons, but have fully supported the incidence in which the local
villagers attacked the police party causing simple injuries to them. Their testimony
does not suffer from exaggeration and has a ring of truth. There is nothing on record
to suggest that they were actuated by any desire to implicate the accused persons
falsely in the incidence. There is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of their account,
only for the reason that their statements were not recorded by the police. The laches
on the part of investigating officer to record the statement of the witness cannot be
the sole ground to disbelieve the otherwise account as given by the witness. It has
been held in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore [1996 SCC (Cri ) 646], it was held
that the real fact that I.O. committed illegality or irregularity during course of
investigation would not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trust worthy or
reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that count. So unless serious
prejudice is caused to the accused because of the latches in investigation, no adverse
inference can be drawn.
9. From combined reading of the deposition of witnesses, there cannot be any doubt
about the incidence which took place, when the agitators instigated by their leader
John Miran Munda to stop the water supply in the mines of ACC Cement Company.
None of the witness has deposed that he was present at the place of occurrence,
although they have stated that he was the man behind the agitation who had incited
the mob to stop the water supply which became the cause for attack on police party.
PW-1 has deposed that John Miran Munda was the agent provocateur.
10. This will by itself not be sufficient to prove the charge under Section 149 against
John Miran Munda. Section 149 prescribes for constructive criminal liability for all
members of an unlawful assembly, where an offence is committed by any member of
such an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or
such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object. It would thus be noticed that one of the essential
ingredients of section 149 is that the offence must have been committed by any
member of an unlawful assembly. Membership of the unlawful assembly is the
fundamental ingredient of the offence. If the person charged was not the member of
the unlawful assembly, but the mind behind the mischief and had instigated or
conspired to bring the offence to its fructification, he can be charged and convicted
for offence of criminal conspiracy, but he cannot be convicted with the aid of
sections 149. As far as the other appellants are concerned they were arrested on spot
and there is sufficient evidence that they were members of an unlawful assembly that
attacked the police party and deterred them from discharge of their official duty and
also committed criminal mischief by resorting to acts of vandalism and damaging the
gate of the pump house. Injuries sustained by the police party are simple in nature
and no single grievous injury was caused to anyone. Therefore, injury reports do not
suggest that any deadly weapon was used in the assault. Appellants Amar Laguri,
Putkar Hessa, Sikandar Balmuchu,Satari Khandait and John Miran Munda are
convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 353/ 149 of the IPC.
PW-1 has deposed in para-22 that John Miran Munda was not the member of
unlawful assembly therefore his conviction under these sections is set aside.
11. Appellants have also been charged for offence of criminal conspiracy, which itself a
substantive offence.
S.120(A) Definition of criminal conspiracy
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
The essence of conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act by illegal means
or an illegal act by legal means. A person may be convicted of conspiracy as soon
as such a conspiracy is hatched before any act is carried into effect. The offence is
complete as soon as the parties have agreed to their unlawful purpose, although
nothing has been settled as to the means or devices to be employed for effecting it.
Under proviso to Section 120-A (2) there should be some acts apart from mere
agreement. The very agreement, league or concert is the essence of the offence.
Criminal conspiracy by its very nature is hatched in secrecy and therefore evidence
of it may not be readily forthcoming. In order to prove a criminal conspiracy which
is punishable under section 120B of the IPC there must be direct or circumstantial
evidence to show that there was agreement between two or more person to commit
the offense. Section 10 of the Evidence Act makes a departure from the
conventional law of criminal jurisprudence, under which, the acts of the co-accused
are normally not regarded as an evidence against the others. Under Section 10 of
the Evidence Act anything said done or written by an accused can be used against
another co-conspirator. Conspiracy criminalizes an agreement to commit a crime.
All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy by any
member of the group. As regards admissibility of evidence strict standards are not
necessary in as much any declaration made by a conspirator in furtherance of and
during subsistence of a conspiracy though hearsay, is admissible against each co-
conspirator. After the conspiracy is executed, the statement made by any co-
conspirator will not bind the co-accused.
12. In the present case all the accused persons are charged under Section 120 B of the
IPC, with Johan Miran Munda, who has been deposed to be the leader and the
mind behind the violent agitation to stop water supply to the company mines. The
evidence against him is the testimony of PW-1 the informant of the case, who has
deposed that it was this accused on whose behest the agitation was being made. He
did not come on spot to join the protesters, but PW-1 in para-3 has deposed that it
was being carried under the banner of his party. In para-5 it has been deposed that
the crowd said that their leader was John Miran Munda and unless their demand was
met they will not allow water supply. In Para-8 also it has been deposed that role of
this accused was prime in the incidence. In Para-17 he has deposed that John Miran
Munda had been agitating to ensure payment of minimum wages to the labours.
13. Statement of the agitators made to the informant at the time of incidence, wherein
they stated that this appellant was their leader and unless the demand was met, they
will not call off the agitation. This statement made by the co-accused will come
within the meaning of Section 10 of the Evidence Act and will be admissible against
accused John Miran Munda. This appellant is named in the FIR and there is direct
and specific allegation against him that he had instigated the mob to resort to
picketing, stopping the water supply to ACC Company and the unlawful assembly
had gathered there to stop the water supply. Attack on the police party was the
culmination of the agitation, when police party went to clear the unlawful assembly.
14. While considering the criminal charge, motive of the persons involved is not
normally a relevant consideration, except in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Motive of an offence whether it is vile or it is high, is not that relevant at the stage of
appreciation of evidence. It may be a mitigating or attributing factor at the stage of
sentencing. In the present case it has come in evidence that the accused persons were
agitating for minimum wages. Whether they were being given minimum wages or
not, is beyond consideration in the present criminal trial and there is no evidence to
draw any inference regarding it. Even if it is assumed that the demands were just,
even then it cannot be a ground to commit criminal offence of criminal mischief,
forming unlawful assembly with deadly weapon and attacked the Police party
thereby obstructing them in the exercise of their official duty. The appellant John
Miran Munda is accordingly held guilty for offence of criminal conspiracy along
with other appellants who were acting on his behest to commit the offence and is
accordingly sentenced for the offence under Sections 120B of the IPC.
On the point of sentence considering the overall facts and circumstance of the
case, absence of any past conviction, instead of sentencing them they are given the
benefits of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and are directed to be
released on admonition.
This Cr. Appeal is dismissed with modification of finding and sentence.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 03rd May, 2024
AFR/ AKT/Satayendra
