Jharkhand High Court
Sarwan Naik vs The State Jharkhand on 7 May, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1377 of 2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.09.2005, passed by Sri Braj Kishore Pandey learned Sessions Judge,
Simdega in S.T. No. 82 of 2002, arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 08
of 2002, Corresponding to G. R. Case No. 24 of 2002]
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1377 of 2005
Sarwan Naik ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----------
For the Appellant : M/s. Sunil Kumar Advocate
For the State : M/s. P. D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
---------
08/Dated 07.05.2024
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. P. D. Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.09.2005, passed by Sri Braj Kishore Pandey,
learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 82 of 2002, arising out of
Simdega P.S. Case No. 08 of 2002, Corresponding to G. R. Case No. 24
of 2002, holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 395 of the
Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years for the aforesaid offence.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of
the informant Ram Keshwar Naik, alleging therein that on 05.02.2002, he
was sleeping in house when the appellant came and asked to open his
door, when the informant opened the door, 08 to 10 masked persons
dragged him outside and he was brutally assaulted. Thereafter, the
accused persons took away Rs.15000/- and some ornaments from his
house.
4. Charge was framed against the appellant under section 395 of the
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1377 of 2005
Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral
and documentary evidence. Defence has also adduced oral evidence in
support of its case.
6. On the basis of the evidence available, on the record, learned trial
court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
7. Now it has to be ascertained, whether the prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all
reasonable doubt.
Ram Kishun Naik P.W.1 has stated that on 05.02.2002, he was
present in his house when the appellant called him from outside and
asked him to open the door. On opening the door he saw 08 to 10
unknown masked persons present there. They started assaulting the
informant and looted Rs. 15000/- from his house along with ornaments.
He had identified the petitioner in the dock. He has been cross
examined at length in his cross-examination at paragraph 8 he has stated
that he was taken to the hospital where he found that the appellant was
also present there, he has stated that he has not seen any injury on his
person but he was admitted in his Hospital from where the police
apprehended him.
8. Ramkeshwar Naik P.W.2 is the informant of this case. He has
supported the prosecution case as made out in the FIR. He has stated that
on the date and time of occurrence when they appellant and Sardhu
Mahto came there and asked him to open the door and when the appellant
opened the door and 08 to 10 persons entered into his house and started
assaulting him and his family members. They also took away rupees
15000/- and some ornaments from there. He has identified the appellant
in the dock. He has been cross examined at length. At paragraph 9 he has
stated that he had not seen any injury on the person of the appellant but
he was limping.
Sugni Devi P.W.3 is the wife of the informant. She has supported
the prosecution case. Mungni Devi P.W.4, Gulab Ram P.W.5, Deepak
Naik P.W.6, Sumitra Devi PW.9 all are family members of the informant
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1377 of 2005
and all of them have supported the prosecution case that on the date and
time of occurrence the appellant and accused got there and 08 to 10,
unknown persons committed dacoity in their house. The gents of the
house were assaulted and accused took away rupees 15000/- and some
ornaments from there. All these witnesses have identified the appellant in
the dock.
9. Dr. Olampiya Kerketta P.W.11 has examined the victim on
06.02.2002 and had found multiple injuries on his person. He has proved
the injury report which has been marked as Ext.- 3.
10. From the perusal of the injury report Ext.-. 3, it appears that the
injured Ram Kishun Naik had sustained multiple injuries on his person.
From the perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the defence, it
appears that the appellant has examined himself as D.W.1. He has stated
that on 05.02.2002, he was sleeping in his house when 15-20 unknown
persons, variously armed entered into his house and they asked him to
take them to the house of the informant, when he refused, he was brutally
assaulted. Thereafter, he had no choice but to comply with the direction
of the ultras. He took them to the house of Ramkeshwar
Dr K. D. Chaudhary D.W.2 had examined the appellant on the next
day i.e. on 07.02.2002. He had found as many as 10 injuries on his
person, out of which injury no. 1 on his chest was grievous in nature and
other injuries were in the nature of bruise and hemorrhage. He has proved
the injury report, which is Ext.-B.
11. From the perusal of the injury report Ext.-.B, it appears that the
appellant has sustained as many as 10 injuries on his person and one of
the injury was grievous in nature.
12. From the aforesaid fact, it appears that the prosecution has been
able to prove that on the date and time of occurrence the appellant had
gone to the house of the informant and got his door opened. Thereafter 08
to 10 persons committed dacoity and had assaulted the informant and the
appellant took away Rs.15,000/- and some ornaments from there.
However, the appellant has been able to show that he had not willingly
gone to the house of the informant rather he was forced by the dacoits to
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1377 of 2005
be taken to the house of the informant, which he initially refused on
which he was assaulted due to which he sustained multiple injuries.
Thereafter, he had no option but to comply with the direction of the
ultras, the fact that he had sustained injuries and was admitted to hospital
has also been admitted by some of the witnesses.
13. From the aforesaid facts; I am of the opinion that the appellant has
not voluntarily and conjointly committed dacoity in the house of the
informant as alleged.
14. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the
appellant for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. This appeal is allowed the judgement of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the court below is set aside.
16. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
