Jharkhand High Court
Rama Rai Son Of Late Bihari Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No.861 of 2006
1. Rama Rai Son of late Bihari Rai
2. Upendra Rai Son of late Baleshwar Rai
3. Sakaldeo Rai Son of late Baleshwar Rai
All residents of Village Bhingodih, P.S. Dhanwar, District
Giridih
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 19.11.2024
By Court:- Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned
Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 16.06.2006 and 17.06.2006 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No.194 of
2000 whereby and whereunder all the appellants were
Cr.A(SJ) No.861 of 2006 Page | 1
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one
years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the
Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one and a half years for the
offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C., S.I. for two
months for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the
I.P.C., (S.I.) for one month for the offence punishable under
Section 341 of the I.P.C., appellants No.1 and 2 were
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and appellants
No.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for
the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is based on written information by
Damodar Modi (informant) stating inter alia that on
27.07.1998, while ploughing his land with his brother and
nephew, a dispute arose with the accused persons over land
ownership and they were assaulted by the accused persons,
including Rama Rai and others, who were armed with
weapons. The attack with the intention to kill allegedly led by
Sakaldeo Rai, resulted in injuries to the informant and his
family and witnesses were present during the incident.
On the basis of written information of the informant,
Dhanwar P.S. Case No.158 of 1998 was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 323, 341,
324, 307, 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences
including Section 149 of the I.P.C. and accordingly,
cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, thereafter, the case was
transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I for
trial and disposal which was registered as Sessions Case
No.194 of 2000. Charges were framed against the accused
persons which were read over and explained to them for
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty
for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the
merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of
non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of
1958') to the appellants to which they deserve. It is further
submitted that the appellants have been implicated in this
case due to land dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the
informant parties were ploughing the land of appellants
which was protested and in a sudden manner, there was
exchange of assault from both sides and there was a counter
case bearing Dhanwar P.S. Case No.159 of 1998 registered for
the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307 of the I.P.C. It is
further submitted that initially F.I.R. was lodged against five
accused persons out of them Biren Rai and Jisu Rai were
juvenile on the date of occurrence and their trial was
separated and present appellants were tried in this case and
have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 323, 341, 447, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. It is further
submitted that no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is
attracted in this case at all as the required intention and
knowledge to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. The informant
Damodar Modi has sustained two injuries one is opined to be
grievous in nature and second simple in nature caused by
hard and blunt substance and injured Sahdeo Modi has
sustained two injuries both are opined to be simple in nature
one is caused by hard and blunt substance and another is
caused by sharp cutting weapon and Anil Modi has sustained
only one injury which was also opined to be simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance. It is further submitted
that appellants No.1 and 3 were also injured in the said
incident at the instance of informant party of this case. None
of the injuries were found to be dangerous to life to the
member of either party as such conviction and sentence of
appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of
the I.P.C. is totally unwarranted which is fit to be set aside. It
was appellants first offence and they have never been
convicted for any other offence and the rest of the sentence of
the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341,
447 and 323 of the I.P.C. may be sustained but the appellants,
being first offender and also in the facts and circumstances of
the case, keeping in view that there was bonafide land
dispute between the parties, deserve benefit of the Act of
1958.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has defended the impugned judgment and order on
merits and submitted that injured Sahdeo and Damodar have
sustained head injury which was likely to cause death.
Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.
8. It appears that in the course of trial altogether eleven
witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them
P.W.-5 Sahdeo Modi, P.W.-6 Anil Modi and P.W.-9 Damodar
Modi are witness-cum-injured.
P.W.-5 Sahdeo Modi is the injured brother of the
informant. According to his evidence, he stated that while
ploughing land (plot no. 315) with his family members, Rama
Rai's wife objected and subsequently, the accused persons
armed with weapons attacked upon him. Rama Rai struck
him on the head with a sword. Upendra Rai and Biren Rai
assaulted him with rods and bars. Anil Rai and Sakaldeo Rai
were also attacked, and Anil's wristwatch was stolen. The
injured were taken to Dhanwar hospital. He further stated
that he had purchased the land in dispute from Jagdish Rai
and Guli Rai through a registered sale deed in 1962 and had
possession of it since then and there was a quarrel over this
land in 1974, which led to a panchayati.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he had also
purchased plot no. 912 from Jagdish and Guli Rai and there
was a dispute regarding this land also in 1996.
P.W.-6 Anil Modi is the injured nephew of the
informant. According to his evidence on the day of the
incident, he was with the informant on the disputed land
when the accused persons arrived armed with weapons.
They objected to their ploughing the land, assaulted the
informant and Sahdeo Modi and also attacked him with a
lathi and Sakaldeo Rai snatched a wristwatch from him.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he was standing
30-40 feet away from the informant during the incident. He
also mentioned that the informant was hospitalized for seven
days, while he himself was admitted to the hospital for one
day.
P.W.-9 Damodar Modi is the injured witness-cum-
informant. According to his evidence on 27.07.1989 in the
morning, while he and his family were working on the
disputed land (plot no. 315), Rama Rai's wife objected to their
activity and subsequently, the accused attacked him; Rama
Rai struck him with a sword, Dharam assaulted him with a
rod and Jisu hit him with a lathi, causing fatal injuries. Other
accused Biren assaulted Sahdeo Modi and Anil Modi and
Sakaldeo stole Anil Modi's wristwatch. He further stated that
his father had purchased the land in 1962 from the accused
grandfather through registered sale deeds.
In his cross-examination, he stated that after the death
of Guli Rai, a quarrel arose between the parties over the
disputed land which led to a panchayati where a document
(Ext.5) was created. He further stated that he had purchased
land from the accused without dispute prior to 1976. He
clarified that Rama Rai gave only one sword blow to him
though he tried to defend himself, but he sustained a head
injury. He also pointed out that he showed the injury to the
police at that time. Although, he had shown bloodstained
clothes to the police, but they did not seize them.
9. Other witnesses have also corroborated the scene but
from the medical evidence of the injured persons as well as
the genesis, manner and circumstances under which the
offence was committed and exchange of assault from both
sides, it appears that the ingredients of offence under Section
307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore,
conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is hereby
set aside. In view of oral and documentary evidence available
on record, it appears that the prosecution has been able to
establish the charges under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 447, of
the I.P.C. against the appellants. It is also apparent from the
record that there was bonafide land dispute between the
parties and counter case was also lodged by the appellants
against the informant party of this case. The appellants were
also injured in this case and it is first offence of the appellants.
The incident was of the year 1998 and more than two and a
half decades have been passed since the date of commission
of offence. Since then both parties have maintained peace and
Cr.A(SJ) No.861 of 2006 Page | 9
harmony and not involved in any other case. At the time of
occurrence, the appellant No.1 was 50 years' old and
appellants No.2 and 3 were 36 and 33 years' old respectively.
10. Considering the overall factual background, genesis,
manner of occurrence and the circumstances under which the
offences were committed by the appellants, their age,
character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest
of justice to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the
appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of
imprisonment as inflicted by the learned trial court.
Therefore, appellants are directed to appear before the
concerned trial court within three months from the date of
this judgment and the learned trial court is directed to release
the appellants giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one
surety of like amount each with condition to maintain peace
and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the
date of furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of concerned
Trial Court. The learned trial court may call for a report from
the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and
release the appellants on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In
case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the
appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to
appear and receive the sentence already awarded to them by
the concerned trial court.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is party allowed with
modification in sentence as stated above.
12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
