Jharkhand High Court
Tetru Marik vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1277 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
18.07.2006 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
(F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No.189 of 2003 / 62 of 2004].
1. Tetru Marik, Son of Bariyar Marik.
2. Nipan Marik, Son of Bariyar Marik.
3. Kailash Marik, Son of Bariyar Marik.
4. Dinu Marik, Son of Harihar Marik.
5. Kikiya Devi @ Kiniya Devi, Wife of Dinu Marik.
6. Jaganwati Devi, Wife of Baleshwar Kapri.
All are resident of Village - Kapari, P.S. -
Hansdiha, Sub-Division and District - Dumka.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Amicus.
For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Prabir
Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 18.07.2006 passed by learned
4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in
Sessions Case No. 189 of 2003 / 62 of 2004, whereby
and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty
for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of the
I.P.C. and instead of granting any substantive
sentence, the trial court has given the benefits of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and
directed to be released on probation bond for
maintaining of peace and good behaviour for a period
of one year and to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during such period.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a
narrow compass is that the informant was living in the
house of his mother-in-law and looks after her
property. The father-in-law of the informant has no
son, but only daughter. On 14.06.2002, the informant
was ploughing the land of his mother-in-law, at that
time, accused persons namely, Dinu Marik, Kailash
Marik, Kikiya (Kiya) Devi, wife of Dinu Marik,
Jaganwati Devi, wife of Baleshwar Kapri, Nipan Marik,
all are resident of Village - Kapati, P.S. - Hansdiha,
District - Dumka, variously armed with lathi, danda
came in the field and asked him to stop to plough the
field. The informant told them that the land belonged
to his mother-in-law and he has been in possession of
this land since long. Upon this, Dinu Marik assaulted
on his head with lathi and the rest accused persons
caught hold him and they assaulted with fists, slap
and danda. At the time of occurrence, he raised alarm
and after hearing alarm, the villagers reached there
and on seeing the villagers, the accused persons fled
away. It is alleged that due to assault, the informant
sustained bleeding injuries on his head, left hand,
shoulder and other parts of the body.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Hansdiha
(Ramgarh) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 was registered
against the appellants for the offence under Sections
341, 323, 504, 307/34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323,
504/307/34 of the I.P.C. After submission of charge
sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges
were framed under Sections 307/34, 323, 341 of the
I.P.C., to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
accused person, altogether eight witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement on the
fardbeyan.
Exhibit- 2 & 2/1 : Requisition for injury
report of the injured
persons.
Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-4 & 4/1 : Injury Report of the
injured person.
Exhibit-5 : Signature of the
informant on fardbeyan.
8. The case of defence is complete denial of the alleged
occurrence. They are innocent and falsely implicated
in this case.
However, following documentary evidence have
been adduced by the defence.
Exhibit-A to A/3 : Notices sent by the
S.D.M., Dumka in Cr.
Misc. Case No. 4/03.
Exhibit-A/4 to A/5 : Summons to the
accused persons which
are issued by the
learned Judicial
Magistrate.
Exhibit-B : Raiyati Khatian.
Exhibit- C : Certified copy of
judgment of P.C.R. Case
No. 237/03, T.R. No.
238/05.
Exhibit-D : Certified copy of charge-
sheet of Ramgarh
(Hansdiha) P.S. Case
No. 50/02.
Exhibit-E : Certified copy of order
dated 2.9.03 of P.C.R.
Case No. 237/03.
Exhibit-F : Certified copy of order
of S.D.M., Dumka
passed in Case No.
262/01.
Exhibit-G : Order of P.C.R. Case No.
273/02.
Exhibit-H : Certified copy of F.I.R.
of G.R. Case No. 55/02.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellants guilty for the
offence under Sections 323 and 341 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2006,
this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of
the appellants.
11. It appears from the record that appellant nos. 1, 3
and 4 have died, as such, in terms of order dated
11.11.2024, the appeal was abated on behalf of the
appellant nos. 1, 3 & 4.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant
nos. 2, 5 & 6 has submitted that although charges
were framed in this case by the trial court for the
offence under Section 341, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C.,
but the appellants were held guilty only for the offence
under Sections 323 and 341 and instead of awarding
any substantive sentence of imprisonment, they were
released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958. The appellants have furnished bond as per
direction of the concerned trial court and the period of
which has also been expired.
13. It is clearly submitted that there was land dispute
between the parties wherein two members of
informant party namely, Ugan Rout and Basant Rout
have sustained simple injures caused by hard blunt
substance.
14. It is submitted that since there was assault from both
sides due to land dispute. Hence, conviction of
appellants was not proper and liable to be set aside.
15. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the
aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the learned
Amicus Curiae and submitted that the injured persons
have categorically deposed about causing of injuries
by the present appellants due to land dispute. The
injury sustained by the informant party has also been
corroborated from the evidence of P.W.-7, Medical
Officer, P.H.C. Seraiyahat, therefore, the conviction of
the appellants is based upon the materials available
on record, corroborated by medical evidence, which
requires no interference by way of this appeal. Thus,
being devoid of merit, this appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
16. It appears that the most important evidence for
adjudicating this appeal is the evidence of the Doctor
P.W.-7.
17. P.W.-7 Dr. Om Prakash, who examined the injured
persons. On examination, following injuries were
found on the body of the injured Ugan Rout:-
(1) Lacerated wound left parietal region of scalp 1" x
¼" x 1/8" with clotted blood.
(2) Abrasion with clotted blood on dorsal aspect of
left foot 1" x ½".
He has found following injuries on the body of the
injured Basant Rout.
(1) An abrasion on right parietal region of scalp
½" x ¼" with reddish brown scab.
18. From the aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that the
trial court has properly appreciated the evidences
available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, calling for any interference by this Court. It
appears that the learned concerned trial court has
taken lenient view in the matter and instead of
awarding substantive sentence to the appellants,
released the appellants after furnishing probation
bond for a period of one year and the period of which
has also expired.
19. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
20. Before imparting, I appreciate the assistance provided
by learned Amicus Curiae in this appeal. Payment of
Rs. 2,500/- shall be made to the learned Amicus by
the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee
on submission of bill.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful and copy of judgment be also
sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee for the needful.
[
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 19th November, 2024
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
