Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Goswamy Son Of Tiro Goswamy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.846 of 2006
------
1. Rajendra Goswamy son of Tiro Goswamy.
2. Shahdeo Goswamy son of Tarni Goswamy
3. Manohar Goswamy son of Tiro Goswamy
All residents of Manjladih P.S. Sarath, District-Deoghar.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 22.11.2024
By Court:- Heard Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
as well as Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants vide judgment dated 19.04.2006
passed in Sessions Case No. 212 of 2002 by learned Additional Sessions
Judge F.T.C. IV, Deoghar whereby and whereunder, appellant nos.1, 2
and 3 have been held guilty for the offences under Section 448 of the
Indian Penal Code and appellant no.2 has been held guilty under Section
323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant nos. 1 and 3 has been
Page | 1
held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code
and instead of awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment, have
been directed to be released after executing a bond of Rs.3,000/- with two
sureties each to maintain peace and good behavior for a period of three
years.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 26.07.1999 at
about 12:00 noon, the accused persons who happens to be the Gotias
(agnates) of the informant was ploughing the field of the informant which
was protested then informant and his wife were assaulted by the accused
persons by their respective weapons. It is alleged that previous litigations
are going on between the informant and accused persons. Due to this
reason, they have attacked the informant by forming unlawful assembly
armed with lathi, kudal and farsa, etc. Anyhow, the informant saved
himself by taking shelter entering into the house of Basuki Mahto.
Accused persons have also committed theft of several household articles.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. was registered as
Sarath P.S. Case No. 71/1999 for the offences under Section 147, 148,
149, 323, 325, 448, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against
altogether seven accused persons.
Page | 2
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by
the investigating officer against the seven accused persons for the
aforesaid offences.
6. After conclusion of trial the appellants were held guilty for the
offences and instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment
they were directed to be released on probation bond.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there are
two injured in this case namely P.W.2 (Tulsi Goswamy) who the
informant and P.W.1 (Munni Devi) is the wife of the informant. Other
examined witnesses are hearsay witnesses. It is further submitted that
there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as
regards genesis, manner, time and place of occurrence. It is sufficient to
demolish the prosecution story. It is further submitted that P.W.4 is the
doctor who has conducted the medical examination of the injured
persons has also not corroborated the prosecution story rather tried to
lay third case which was never the case of the prosecution. It is further
submitted that a land dispute between the parties is an admitted fact and
it is also admitted that both parties have filed more than 3 to 4 cases
against each other. Admittedly, they are under litigating terms which
was the sole reason for false implications of the appellants. Further
eliciting the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
Page | 3
that P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the occurrence took place at about
07:00 A.M., while P.W.2 states that the occurrence took place at 12:00
in the noon. Both the injured were medically examined at Deoghar,
Sadar Hospital at about 11:20 hours in the night without requisition of
the police. It is very surprising that the injury sustained by the injured
persons has been opined to be caused within 6 hours. It seems that the
injured persons have sustained injury at about 06:00 PM which clearly
shows that the informant party have sustained injuries anywhere else for
any other reason and due to inimical terms with the appellants, they
have lodged this false case and learned trial court without properly
appreciating the aforesaid material contradictions and infirmities
appearing in the prosecution evidence held the appellants guilty for the
offences under Section 448 of the I.P.C. to all the appellants and
appellant no.2 has been held guilty under Section 323 and 325 of the
Indian Penal Code, appellant nos. 1 and 3 has been held guilty for the
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, impugned
judgment and order of conviction of the appellants is liable to be set
aside and this appeal may be allowed.
8. Although, learned Trial Court taking lenient view directed to the
appellants to release on furnishing the bail bond under Section 360
Cr.P.C., but the stigma of conviction is still haunting the appellants and
Page | 4
may cause serious inroads in the way of granting benefit of provisions
of Probation of Offenders Act, in subsequent case which have been
instituted by the informant against the appellants. Therefore, impugned
judgment and order is not legally sustainable and conviction of the
appellants is fit to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned Add.P.P. appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and
submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellants are minor in nature and fit to be ignored which has rightly
been considered and ignored by the learned trial court. There is no
illegality or infirmity in holding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid
offences rather learned trial court taking lenient view has granted the
benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal has no merits and is
fit to be dismissed.
10. I have gone through the records of the case along with impugned
judgment and order in the light of the arguments raised on behalf of both
the sides. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges leveled
against accused persons/appellants altogether five witnesses were
examined by the prosecution out of them P.W. 1 and 2 are injured
witnesses and P.W.3 Basuki Mahto has been declared hostile by the
Page | 5
prosecution expressing no knowledge about the occurrence.
P.W.4 Dr. Nimai Chand Manjhi was the then medical officer
posted at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar has examined the injured persons on
26.07.1999 at 11:20 hours in the night and noticed defused swelling on
left hand 2" below elbow with acute tenderibs, lacerated cut injury on
head, bruise and abrasion over left leg medial side on the body of Tulsi
Goswamy. X-Ray was advised and X-Ray plate shows fracture on left
side ulna. P.W.5 Punit Dev is formal witness.
11. From the trend of prosecution evidence as discussed above, it is
crystal clear that except the injured persons, no independent witness has
corroborated the prosecution story. It appears that P.W. 1 Munni Devi
states that time of occurrence at about 07:00 AM, accused persons were
ploughing her field which was protested by her husband Tulsi Goswamy,
then Sahdev Goswamy assaulted by rod, Rajendra Goswamy by farsa on
head and other co-accused persons assaulted her husband by lathi and
danda. She has deposed that at about 08:00 AM again all the accused
persons came to her house where Sahdeo Goswamy assaulted her by
lappad thappad and one accused person took away one mound of wheat
and Rajendra Goswamy committed theft of Rs.1,000/-.
P.W.2 Tusli Goswamy has stated the time of occurrence about
12:00 noon, when his field was forcibly being ploughed by the accused
Page | 6
persons, he protested against ploughing his field, then Sahdeo Goswamy
given rod blows executing fracture injury, Manohar Goswamy given farsa
blow on head and other accused-persons assaulted him by lathi and
danda. He took shelter in the house of Basuki Mahto where appellants
also chased him and Basuki Mahto also forbade the accused persons from
scuffling in his house. Thereafter, accused persons went to the house of
this witness and assaulted his wife and committed theft of wheat and
other household articles. He went to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for his
treatment where his fardbeyan was recorded.
He has further deposed that he saved himself running towards the
house of Basuki Mahto (P.W.3), but P.W.3 has expressed no knowledge of
above occurrence and nothing has been elicited from P.W.3, after
declaring him hostile which may support the prosecution case. It further
appears that the formal F.I.R. was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of
the informant Tulsi Goswamy (P.W.2) which was recorded in Sadar
Hospital, Deoghar on 26.07.1999 at about 01:00 AM that means
27.07.1999. Although, F.I.R. goes to show that the information was
received at police station on the same day at about 16:30 hours and the
informant was Tulsi Goswamy. This fact also cast doubt against the
prosecution case. Admittedly, no requisition for injury report was issued
by Investigating Officer for medical examination of the injured
Page | 7
informant. Under such circumstances non-examination of the
Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the defence in
eliciting the material contradictions and infirmities appearing in the
prosecution case. Overall aspects of the case as projected by the
informant and his wife do not inspire confidence. It is further appears that
the trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate and analysis the
evidence of material witnesses P.W.1 and 2 in the light of corroborative
evidence of P.W.4 and arrived at wrong conclusion while recording the
guilt of the appellants.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find merits in
this appeal which is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and
order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge F.I.C. IV, Deoghar in
S.T. Case No. 212 of 2002 is set aside and appellants are acquitted from
all the charges leveled against them.
12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-22/11/2024
Amar/-N.A.F.R.
Page | 8
