Jharkhand High Court

Sikandar Raut vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024

                Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 954 of 2006

     [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2006 and Order of
     sentence dated 26.06.2006 passed by learned 3rd Additional
     Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No.220 of 1997 ].

     1. Sikandar Raut, Son of Raghu Raut, resident of Village
        - Mahila, P.O. - Chilra, P.S. - Saraiyahat, District -
        Dumka.
     2. Arjun Raut, Son of Late Mohan Raut, resident of
        Village - Mahila, P.O. - Chilra, P.S. - Saraiyahat,
        District - Dumka.
     3. Abhikant Raut, Son of Arjun Raut, resident of Village-
        Mahila, P.O. - Chilra, P.S. - Saraiyahat, District -
        Dumka.                   ...      ...     Appellants
                          Versus
     The State of Jharkhand      ...      ...    Respondent
                                   .....
        For the Appellants      : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate.
                                  Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                  Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate.
                                  Mr. Neha Pandey, Advocate.
        For the Respondent      : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
                               .....
                              P R E S E N T
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                              JUDGMENT

By Court: Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for

the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned

Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal

appeal challenging his judgment of conviction dated

24.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2006

passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,

(F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 220 of 1997,

whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been

held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 304

Part-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

five years for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of

the I.P.C. and further to undergo imprisonment for six

months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a

narrow compass is that informant Pradeep Rout and

accused Sikandar Raut (appellant no. 1) used to

plough their field by sharing the ox of each other. It is

alleged that on 06.07.1997, Sikandar Raut had

ploughed his filed with the ox in the morning. Hence,

the informant took the ox of Sikankar Raut in the

evening for ploughing and sowing maize crop. It is

further alleged that when the informant brought his ox

from cattle shed to his field, meanwhile, Arjun Raut

(appellant no. 2) objected and Sikandar Raut separated

his ox from ploughing on the pretext that time is over.

It is further alleged that when the informant returned

to his home then Sikandar Raut came and started

abusing him and Arjun Raut also came there and

assaulted informant on his head by gadasa. Accused

Abhikant Raut assaulted on the head of the informant

by farsa. Sikandar Rout also started assaulting

indiscriminately with his lathi on both arms of

informant. The informant raised alarm then his father

Tiruti Raut (since deceased) came, who was also

assaulted by Arjun Raut (appellant no. 1) and

Sikandar Raut (appellant no. 2).

4. On the basis of above information, FIR being

Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 99 of 1997 dated 06.07.1997

was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323,

337, 324, 504/34 of the I.P.C. Later on, offence under

Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added due to death of

Tiruti Raut in the said occurrence.

5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case

has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323,

337, 324, 504, 307 and 302/34 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

and 302/34 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 persons, altogether eight witnesses were

examined by the prosecution.

7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following

documentary evidences were also adduced.

Exhibit-1 : Signature of Birendra Raut on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of informant on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of Birendra Raut on the inquest report.

Exhibit-2 : Injury report of deceased.

Exhibit-2/1 : Injury report of deceased.

Exhibit-2/2 : Injury report of informant.

Exhibit-3 : C.C. of post-mortem report of deceased.

     Exhibit-4        :   Fardbeyan of deceased.

     Exhibit-5        :   Endorsement           on      the
                          fardbeyan.

     Exhibit-6        :   Formal F.I.R.

8. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent

persons and have committed no offence at all. They

have been falsely implicated in this case.

However, two documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence.



       Exhibit-A        :   Certified      copy     of     F.I.R.    of
                           Saraiyahat        P.S.        Case      No.
                           98/97.

      Exhibit-B        :   Charge-sheet            No.      105/97
                           submitted in Saraiyahat P.S.
                           Case No. 98/97.

9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence

available on record, held the appellants guilty for the

offence under Sections 323 and 304 Part-II of the

I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 24.06.2006 and order of sentence

dated 26.06.2006, this Criminal Appeal has been

preferred on behalf of the appellants.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

during pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1

namely, Sikandar Raut and appellant no. 2 namely,

Arjun Raut have died, as such, the appeal on behalf of

appellant nos. 2 & 3 may be abated.

12. Considering the aforesaid submission, the appeal

stands abated against the appellant no. 1 namely,

Sikandar Raut and appellant no. 2 namely, Arjun

Raut.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 has submitted

that no specific overt act has been attributed against

the appellant Abhikant Raut and none of the

prosecution witnesses examined in this case including

the informant (P.W.-3) have alleged any specific role of

the appellant in causing any injury to any of the

informant party or even to the deceased. The

prosecution has also failed to prove any common

intention in furtherance of which the appellant

Abhikant Raut has participated in the alleged offence,

rather the learned trial court has not convicted the

present appellant with the aid of Section 34 of the

I.P.C. Under the aforesaid circumstance, specific role

of the appellant in the alleged offence is required to be

proved.

14. The appellant Abhikant Raut has been convicted only

on the basis of general and omnibus allegation

against him. Hence, he deserves acquittal and this

appeal is fit to be allowed by setting aside the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence.

15. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the

aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant

and has submitted that there are eye-witnesses of the

occurrence. P.W.-5 Gayatri Devi, who happens to be

the wife of Birendra Raut (P.W.-1), P.W. -6 Shyama

Devi, who is wife of the informant Pradeep Raut. P.W.-

6 Shyama Devi has supported the prosecution story

as an eye-witness and attributed role of the present

appellant in the said occurrence. Hence, the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence required no interference and this appeal

devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed.

16. It is not disputed that the deceased Tiruti Raut died in

course of treatment in the alleged occurrence. The

informant (P.W.-3) has stated nothing about the role

of present appellant Abhikant Raut, rather he has

specifically stated that except Sikandar, none else was

involved in assaulting him or his father.

17. P.W.-1 Birendra Raut is the son of deceased and he is

a hearsay witness and came to know about the

incident from his brother Pradeep Raut.

18. P.W.-2 Bimal Rana has been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

19. P.W.-4 Gopal Ghor has seen the occurrence from

some distance and has stated in a general manner

that hearing hulla, he went towards the place of

occurrence and saw Arjun, Sikandar and Abhikant

were scuffling and assaulting to Tiruti Raut by small

stick. Informant Pradeep Raut was also present there,

but he has not stated anything regarding any assault

given to the Pradeep or any specific role of the

accused persons, which need to be given much force.

20. P.W.-5 Gayatri Devi. She has specifically stated at

para-4 of her evidence that at the time of occurrence,

she was not present there, rather, she arrived later on

and saw the injuries to brother of her husband and

father-in-law. His father-in-law was treated at

Hospital. She also admits cross-case lodged by the

accused persons.

21. P.W.-6 Shyama Devi is wife of informant. She is also

not eye-witness of the occurrence and stated in a

general way against all the appellants showing their

involvement in the alleged occurrence.

22. P.W.-7 is the Dr. Sita Ram Sah, who conducted

autopsy on the deceased and found five injuries,

which are as follows:-

(I) Healing - Superficially laceration on right

shoulder joint posteriorally 2½" x 1" skin deep.

(II) Abrasion under healing process on right arm

laterally.