Jharkhand High Court
Jahangir Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 October, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 208 of 2018
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2018 and Order of
sentence dated 27.01.2018, passed by learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2006 ]
1. Jahangir Ansari, Son of Late Rahim Mian, aged about 55
years.
2. Ashin @ Ashin Ansari @ Ashim Ansari, Son of Late
Rahim Mian, aged about 63 years.
3. Bhutel Ansari, Son of Ashin Mian @ Ashim Mian, aged
about 32 years.
4. Alamgir Ansari, Son of Jahangir Mian, aged about 26
years.
All are resident of Village - Kurwa, P.O. and P.S.
- Sonaraithari, District - Deoghar.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate.
.....
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 24.09.2024 Pronounced on 04.10.2024
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their conviction and sentence
dated 20.01.2018 / 27.01.2018 passed by learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial
No. 25 of 2006, arising out of Sonaraithari Sarwan
P.S. Case No.84 of 2005 (G.R. Case No.508 of 2005)
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,
324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for
the offence under Sections 307, 323 and 147 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for
the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. with fine of
Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, R.I. for two years
for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and one
year for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a
narrow compass is that on 03.07.2005 at about 6:00
AM, the informant was ploughing his field,
meanwhile, present appellants namely, Ashin Ansari
(since deceased), Jahangir Ansari, Bhutel Ansari,
Karu Mian, Ishaque Mian and Alamgir armed with
iron rod, farsa and lathi started assauling the
informant on his head and also assaulted Rafique
Mian on his head with intention to kill them. Jahangir
Mian also threatened to kill them by shooting. It is
further alleged that in the said occurrence, Yakub
Mian was also assaulted by farsa blow on his head.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered
against the accused for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigation
Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against
six accused persons namely, Ashim Ansari, Jahangir
Ansari, Bhutel Ansari, Karu Mian, Ishaque Mian and
Alamgir Ansari for the offence under Section 147,
148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C. After
taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 25 of
2006 was registered and in due course, transfer to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar for
trial and disposal. One Co-accused namely, Karu
Mian was declared juvenile and his trial was splitted.
The charges were framed against all the five accused
persons for the offence under Sections 148/324/147,
323/149 and 307/147 of the I.P.C., which they
denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
It appears that in course of trial, one accused
Ishaque Mian died. Hence, proceeding against him
was dropped vide order dated 16.09.2013.
It further appears that co-accused Karu Mian,
who was declared Juvenile, subsequently, he was
acquitted in the court of learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Deoghar in the year 2011.
6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against
rest accused persons, altogether six witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Munajir
Ansari on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Signature on written
report.
Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement.
Exhibit-3 to 3/2 : Injury report of Nazir
Mian, Matijan Bibi and
Yakub Mian.
Exhibit-3/3 & 3/4 : Supplementary injury
report of Matijan Bibi
and Yakub Mian.
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and
false implication due to land dispute. However, no
oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by
the defence.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, found the appellants not guilty for
the offence under Sections 148, 149 and 324 of the
I.P.C. and acquitted them from the said charges, but
at the same time, the appellants were held guilty for
the offence under Sections 307, 323 and 147 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.
10. It appears that during pendency of this appeal,
appellant no. 2 namely, Ashin @ Ashin @ Ashim
Ansari has died and to this effect, an affidavit dated
03.09.2024 has been filed on behalf of Sate.
11. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that I.A.
No. 6746 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants and
the injured person jointly.
12. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that
admittedly, there was land dispute between the
parties and the occurrence took place in a sudden
manner without any pre-meditation or design to
commit any serious offence. The totality of
circumstances of the case goes to show that the
required intention or knowledge for constituting the
offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely
lacking in this case. Similarly, there was no lawful
assembly formed by the appellants for doing any
unlawful act in prosecution of any unlawful object as
defined under Section 141 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the
offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. is also not
attracted in this case. Both parties have voluntarily
settled their dispute through intervention of well-
wishers and mutual peace and harmony has been
restored between the parties. Rest of the offence
under Section 323 of the I.P.C., for which the
appellants have also been convicted and
sentenced, is compoundable in nature. The appellants
and the injured informant party of this case have
presented joint compromise petition, which is fit to be
accorded in the ends of justice and in view of
compromise between the parties, the appellants
deserves to be acquitted.
13. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants, but no objection has been raised on
behalf of the respondents / injured persons. It is
submitted by learned APP that all the three injured
persons in this case have received incised wounds on
the vital part of the body, although, simple in nature,
but caused by sharp cutting weapon and some of the
injuries are found to be grievous in nature caused by
hard blunt object. As per evidence available on record,
the appellants have attacked on the injured persons
with intention to kill them, as such, they have rightly
been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of
the I.P.C., which is not compoundable in nature.
Hence, joint compromise petition (I.A. No. 6746 of
2024) filed by the parties is not maintainable under
law and there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order, which calling for any
interference. This appeal has not merit and fit to be
dismissed.
14. For proper appreciation of this case, the evidence of
injured persons deserves to be discussed herein.
15. P.W.-2 Yakub Mian has stated that his son was
ploughing his field at 7 O' Clock. Meanwhile, all of a
sudden Jahangir, Yasin Mian, Bhutel Mian, Karu
Mian and Ishaque Mian having farsa, rod and lathi
resisted the ploughing of field. Najir Ansari was
assaulted with farsa on his head, Bhutel assaulted
him with rod, Jahangir also assaulted with farsa on
his head. His wife Matizan Bibi was assaulted by
Bhutel Mian. His son went to police station and
thereafter, he went to the hospital for treatment,
where the police has recorded his statement. He has
also admitted land dispute between the parties, which
is the reason for the occurrence.
16. P.W.-3 Matizan Bibi is another injured in this case.
According to her evidence, the occurrence took place
in a sudden manner while her son was ploughing
their own land. She has stated that her husband was
assaulted by Jahangir and Alamgir and she was also
assaulted with lathi on her hand and leg by Yasin.
The occurrence took place due to land dispute.
17. P.W.-4 Najir Ansari (informant) was ploughing the
field at the relevant time of occurrence. According to
his evidence also, all of a sudden Yasin, Jahangir,
Bhutel and Ishaque Ansari armed with farsa, lathi
and iron rod came their and forbade him from
ploughing the land and also started assaulting on
head of his father, mother and this witness also. He
has lodged written report of this case. He also
admitted that there was dispute between the parties
with regard to partition of land.
18. P.W.-6 Dr. Rameshwar Mahto has examined the
injured Nazir Mian and found following injuries:-
(i) Incised wound over left parietal area of the skull
2 ½ x ¼" x bone deep, bleeding present.
(ii) Incised wound over middle of skull 2" x ¼" x
bone deep, bleeding present.
(iii) Incised wound over occipital area of the skull
1½" x ¼" x scalp deep.
(iv) Complain of body ache.
He has also examined injured Matizan Bibi and
found following injuries:-
(i) Swelling with tenderness over left hand including
wrist 4" x 2", x-ray advised.
(ii) Swelling with tenderness on left knee 2" x 2".
(iii) Complain of body ache.
He has also examined injured Yakub Mian and
found following injuries:-
(i) Incised wound on right parietal area of the skull
3" x ¼" x bone deep bleeding present.
(ii) Incised wound on left parietal area of the skull
2½" x ¼" x bone deep, bleeding present.
(iii) Incised wound over occipital area 1" x ¼" x scalp
deep, bleeding present.
(iv) Swelling with tenderness area right elbow
including forearm. X-ray advised.
19. P.W.-1 Takbul Mian is the hostile witness.
20. P.W.-5 Chandra Mohan Hansda is the I.O. of the case
who has proved the investigation and submission of
charge sheet etc.
21. From the injury report of all the injured persons as
discussed above, it is crystal clear that injured Najir
Ansari (informant) has sustained three incised
wound over different parts of the body, but all the
injuries are opined to be simple in nature caused by
sharp cutting weapon.
Injured Matizan Bibi has sustained swelling with
tenderness over left hand including wrist and left
knee, which are also found to be simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance. But,
supplementary injury report shows that there was
fracture in the forearm of IInd metacarpal bone of left
hand and injury was accordingly opined to be
grievous in nature.
Another injured Yakub Mian has also sustained
three incised wounds on different parts of the body,
which have been opined to be simple in nature caused
by sharp cutting weapon and forth injury is swelling
with tenderness area on right elbow including forearm
caused by hard blunt substance, which after X-ray
report shows fracture. Accordingly, opined to be
grievous in nature.
22. We have given anxious consideration to the genesis,
manner and place of occurrence, which is obviously
started in a sudden manner due to land dispute
between the parties. The spade is commonly used in
agriculture, which may be considered as sharp
cutting weapon, as has been used in this case by the
appellants for assaulting the informant party. None of
the injuries caused by spade, although being cut
injuries have not been opined to be very serious in
nature and even likely to cause death of any of the
injured persons.
Constituting the offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C., the Court has to see, whether the act
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
Section 307 of the I.P.C.
23. In the instance case, the grievous injuries sustained
by injured persons are found not on the vital part of
the body and the simple injures caused by spade
appears to be happened in sudden manner without
any intention to kill the injured persons or the
knowledge as required to constitute offence of murder
under Section 300 of the I.P.C. It is also trite that the
intention of the accused can be ascertained from the
actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding
circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the
weapon used and the severity of the blows inflected
can be considered to infer intend.
24. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the considered view that conviction
and sentence of the appellants for the offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable and
justified under law, which is hereby set aside.
25. We further find in the background of the evidence
available in this case, offences under Sections 323,
324, 325 of the I.P.C. are constituted against the
appellants, out of which, offence under Section 324 of
the I.P.C. is not compoundable in nature. Therefore,
considering the overall aspect of the case, the
impugned judgment is altered and modified to the
extent that the conviction of the appellants under
Section 307 and 147 of the I.P.C. is set aside and
their conviction for the offence under Sections 323
and 324 of the I.P.C. is maintained, but the sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone. The
appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged
from their respective liability of bail bond.
26. Since the appellant no. 2 namely, Ashin @ Ashin
Ansari @ Ashim Ansari has died on 23.03.2023,
hence, the appeal is abated against him.
27. Accordingly, this appeal as well as I.A. No. 6746 of
2024 stand disposed of.
28. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 4 t h October, 2024.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
