Ranjit Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 4880 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ranjit Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                  Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 143 of 2017

    Against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2016 and order
    of sentence dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional
    Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 109
    of 2012.

    Ranjit Sahu                                  ..............APPELLANT
                          Versus
    State of Jharkhand                         ............RESPONDENT
                                     ......

     For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate.
     For the State     : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
                                    ......

                             PRESENT
                          SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                          SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

                             JUDGMENT

Per, Ananda Sen, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charges under Section(s) 323, 341, 452, 504 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with other sentences for the other offences.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by no stretch of imagination the appellant could have been punished under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the period of ten years. He further submitted that from the nature of the injury and evidence (both ocular and medical), this is not a case where the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the Doctor has clearly stated that the injury was simple in nature and admittedly the same was caused by stick, which cannot attract Section 307 IPC.

Page/1 On these grounds, the counsel for the appellant sought for acquittal of the appellant.

3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that this appellant was disturbing the informant since long and on the fateful day, he assaulted Subodh Chandra Das, Sandhya Devi and Sabita Devi. The Doctor found injury on the head, though the same was simple in nature, since the same was on the head, Section 307 IPC is attracted. Thus, as per him, the Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. and have gone through the records. Considering the nature of this case, we are not dealing in details with each and every line of the evidence of the witnesses. We are only dealing with the relevant portion of the evidence and materials, which lead us to the definite conclusion.

5. This case has been instituted at the instance of Subodh Chandra Das, who is the informant of this case. He stated that on 20.11.2011, in the evening when they were in the house, Ranjit Sahu, the appellant herein, with a stick (lathi) entered their house and started abusing them. When he was confronted by the informant, the appellant threatened them that if they did not leave the place, they will be done away with. On saying this, with the lathi, which he was carrying, he started assaulted them. The appellant assaulted the informant on his head, as a result of which, as per him, there was a fracture. He further stated that the appellant also assaulted Sandhya Devi and Sabita Devi, when they tried to save the informant.

On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Bundu P.S. Case No. 134/2011 was registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 452, 504, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses, as P.W. 1-

Page/2 Shatish Chandra Das, P.W.2- Niranjan Machhuwa, P.W.3- Subodh Chandra Das, P.W. 4 Mukesh Yogi, P.W.4- Sandhya Devi, P.W. 6- Sabita Devi, P.W. 7- Singrai tudu and P.W.8- Dr. Goutam Chandra. The prosecution has also exhibited the following documents;

          Ext.- 1     Written report.
          Ext.-1/1    Endorsement on the written report.
          Ext.-2-     Injury Report of Subodh Chandra Das.
          Ext.2/1-    Injury report of Sandhya Devi
          Ext.-2/2-   Injury report of Sabita Devi.

P.W.1- Shatish Chandra Das, stated that on hearing some commotion, we went to the house of the informant and he saw the altercation between the informant and the appellant. The appellant was carrying a stick. He further deposed that when he reached there he saw the injury on the head of Subodh Chandra Das and there was injury on the head of his wife and on the hand of his daughter- Sabita Devi. He also deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, the appellant fled away.

P.W.2- Niranjan Machhuwa stated that he reached the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry, when he saw Subodh Chandra Das and his wife fallen on the ground smeared with blood. There was injury on the head of Subodh and his wife. There was injury behind the ear of his daughter. He also deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, the appellant fled away. P.W.3- Subodh Chandra Das: is the informant, who supported the case of the prosecution and stated that he was assaulted on his head and so was his wife by this appellant with the help of bamboo stick. His daughter was also assaulted below the ear. He stated that the wounds had to be stitched. The written reported was marked as Ext.-1.

P.W.4- Mukesh Yogi: is hearsay witness. He had received informant about the aforesaid incident, when he reached home. P.W.5- Sandhya Devi, who is the one of the injured. She stated that when she was inside the house, Ranjit Sahu, the appellant, came and assaulted her husband. Assault was on the head by bamboo stick and when she tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by this

Page/3 appellant on her head. She further stated that her daughter was also assaulted below the ear. The blood oozed out from the injuries of all and there was blood in the earth. No one came to cross-examine her. P.W. 6- Sabita Devi- is the daughter of the informant who stated in the same line as the informant and P.W.5. She was also not cross- examined.

P.W.7- Singrai Tudu is the Investigating Officer, who stated that he took over charge of investigation of this case and accordingly proceeded to the place of occurrence. This witness has proved the endorsement made over the written report and accordingly it has been marked as Ext. -1/1. He further deposed that in course of investigation after recording the statement of witnesses and after receiving the respective injury reports, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 323, 341 452, 504 and 307 IPC.

P.W.8- Dr. Gautam Chandra, examined the victims on 21.11.2011 and found the following injuries on their person.

Subodh Chandra Das (injured):-

1. Abrasion over scalp over frontal area of size 2 c.m. X 1 c.m.

2. Bruise over occipital area of size 2 c.m. X 1 c.m.

3. Small bruise over left leg. Sandhya Devi (injured)-

1. Lacerated wound of 4 c.m. X 5 c.m. over frontal area of scalp.

2. Abrasion of size 2 c.m. X 1 cm. Over right hand lateral aspect forearm i.e. multiple injuries over right arm.

3. Pain over left thumb (having tenderness) Sabita Devi (injured):

1. Lacerated wound of 2 c.m. in diameter over mastoid area

2. Lacerated wound of size 1 c.m. over left tragus, and

3. Pain and swelling over left hand with tenderness.

The doctor had opined that the injuries on all these persons are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

7. After closure of evidences, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and he denied the accusation. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

8. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and Page/4 also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against the appellant to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

9. From the evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidences we find that only one blow was given to the injured, though the injury was on the head, but the Doctor has stated the injury caused to the informant Subodh Chandra Das is merely abrasion over the scalp over frontal area and bruise over occipital area and leg. He has not found any fracture on head or any part of the body. He also stated that nature of injury is simple.

So far injury of Sandhya Devi i.e. wife of informant is concerned, there are lacerated wound over frontal area of scalp and abrasion over right hand and pain over left thumb. The injuries are simple. There is no fracture.

So far injury of Sabita Devi i.e. daughter of the informant is concerned, there are lacerated wound over mastoid area and lacerated wound of over left tragus, and pain and swelling over left hand.

10. From the medical evidence, it is clear that there was no fracture. Thus the statement of the witnesses that the head of the informant got fractured is not correct. All the wounds are simple, caused by stick. There is only one blow on the head of both informant and his wife. There was no repetition of the blow. Thus, we find that the basic ingredient of Section 307 i.e. intention to commit murder is missing.

11. From the evidences, we also find that there is consistent evidence that the appellant had assaulted the informant, his wife and his daughter. The blow was one and the injury was simple. In this context, it is necessary to quote Section 323 IPC, which reads as under:-

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

12. Since the injuries are simple in nature caused by a lathi and there is no fracture and there are only some bruises and laceration,

Page/5 we are of the opinion that this case falls under Section 323 IPC.

13. Further we find that this is consistent case of the prosecution that this appellant assaulted the injured with stick after entering the house of the informant, thus the prosecution has been able to prove the commission of offence under Sections 341 and 452 IPC. Section 504 IPC is also attracted in this case. Thus, considering the evidences of the witnesses and perusing the record, we are inclined to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 341 452 and 504 IPC only and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for two years conjointly for the offence. Since the appellant has already served the sentence for more than the period, which is being awarded by this Court, he will not be liable to pay the fine. Further since the appellant has already remained in custody for more than two years (in fact ten years), as stated by the counsel for the appellant, this Court directs the above named appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

15. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated: the 06th May, 2024.

NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3

Page/6