Jharkhand High Court

Majmuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2025

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1313 of 2007

        [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2007 and
        Order of sentence dated 21.09.2007, passed by learned 1st
        Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 124 of
        2002.]

     1. Majmuddin Ansari, Son of Sultan Miyan.
     2. Anil Ansari, Son of Majmuddin Ansari.
          Both residents of village Bhojpur, Police Station- Nagar
       Untari, District- Garhwa.
                                            ..... Appellants
                         Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                 ..... Respondent
                                  .....
      For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
                             Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate.
                             Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
      For the Respondent : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
                                  .....
                           P R E S E N T
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

                              JUDGMENT

Dated: 10th January, 2025

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 20.09.2007 and order of sentence dated

21.09.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sesssions Judge,

Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2002 whereby and

where under, both the appellants have been held guilty for

the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the

I.P.C. and the appellant no. 1 has been further convicted

under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and appellant no. 2 under

Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and both are sentenced to

undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.500/- under

Section 307 of the I.P.C. and Appellant No. 1 is further

sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 324 of

the I.P.C. and appellant no. 2 to undergo R.I. for one year

and two years, respectively under Sections 323 and 325 of

the I.P.C. with default stipulations. All the sentences were

directed to run concurrently

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow

compass is that on 16.10.2000 at 07:30 AM, brother of the

informant was sowing potato on his land, which was just

adjacent to the land of the informant. Brother of the

informant dumped soil in land of the informant, due to

this reason an altercation took place between them. Above

named accused persons started assaulting the informant

by means of lathi and danda, resulting which informant

sustained grievous injury. Upon raising alarm, some

persons came and saved him. After the occurrence,

informant and his son were brought to the hospital, where

they were treated.

4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Nagaruttari

P.S. Case No. 142 of 2000 was registered against the above

named accused persons for the offences under Sections

341/323/324/325/34 of the I.P.C.

5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer

has submitted the charge sheet against accused persons for

the offences punishable under Sections

341/323/324/325/307/34 of the I.P.C. After taking

cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the court

of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, charges were framed for the

offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the

I.P.C. against the accused persons which they denied and

claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against them,

altogether nine witnesses were examined by the

prosecution.

P.W.-1 : Anand Sharma.

P.W.-2 : Rajendra Prasad Gupta.

P.W.-3 : Birju Sao.

P.W.-4 : Dashrath Prasad Gupta.

P.W.-5 : Rashidan Bibi.

P.W.-6 : Tejmul Ansari.

P.W.-7 : Dr. Sita Ram Gupta.

P.W.-8 : Sunil Kumar Sharma.

P.W.-9 : Dinesh Prasad Singh.

7. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary

evidences were also adduced.

Exhibit-1 : Injury Report of Tejmul Ansari.

Exhibit-2 : Formal FIR.

8. On the other hand, the defence has also exhibited two

documentary evidences.



     Exhibit-A         : Certified      copy      of   the   complaint
                            petition   filed     on    behalf   of    the
                            appellant no. 1.

     Exhibit-B         : Certified copy of order sheet of
                            Complaint Case No. 551/2000.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there

is land dispute between the parties. Most of the eye

witnesses have turned hostile. I.O. has also not been

examined to prove the place of occurrence. Neither the

blood stained cloths nor blood stained soil were seized by

the I.O. The conviction of appellants is bad in law and fit to

be set aside. The learned trial court has convicted the

appellants only on the basis of evidence of P.W.-3, but has

failed to appreciate that P.W.-3 has stated the time of

occurrence at about 03:00 O' Clock, but alleged occurrence

has taken place at 7 O' Clock and appellant no. 1 has

assaulted the informant by lathi, although the informant

himself stated that he has been assaulted by spade. So there

are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-3. It is

further submitted that Doctor (P.W.-7) has stated that injury

no. i to iv, vi and vii are simple in nature. Altogether 24 year

has been lapsed, since then appellants have maintained

peace and never involved in any other criminal activity.

10. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has

opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the

judgment on merits.

11. I have gone through the entire record, in the light of the

argument raised on behalf of both side and also perused the

impugned judgment and order.

12. It appears that altogether nine witnesses were examined by

the prosecution out of them, the P.W.-1 Anand Sharma and

P.W.-2 Rajendra Prasad Gupta have been declared hostile

by the prosecution.

13. P.W.-3 Birju Sao has supported the prosecution case and

has stated that on hullah of informant, he went in the house

and saw that Madan Mian and Anil Ansari were assaulting

the informant by Danda and due to assault, he sustained

head injury and his left hand was broken. He has clearly

stated in his cross-examination that when he went to the

informant's house, he saw that accused persons were

assaulting the informant. This witness has stated in his

examination-in-chief that this occurrence took place at

about 03:00 PM. It appears that incorrect time has been

mentioned by the witness due to some confusion.

14. P.W.-4 Dashrath Prasad Gupta was declared hostile.

15. P.W.-5, Rashidan Bibi has stated that at 7 O' Clock, she

heard the hullah of her husband and saw that Majmuddin

was assaulting her husband by spade on head and Anil

assaulted by lathi, due to which his hands were broken. In

her cross-examination, she has answered all the questions

with regard to manner of assault and place of occurrence.

16. P.W.-6 Tajmul Ansari is the informant and he stated that he

was planting potato in his field, at the same time,

Majumddin came and started assaulting him on his head by

spade. Thereafter, Anil assaulted him by lathi, due to which

his left hand was broken. Roja bibi also assaulted him on his

leg. On hullah, his wife and other person were came and

took him to hospital for treatment.

17. P.W.-7, Dr. Sitaram Gupta, who has examined the injured

(informant). According to this witness, the injured sustained

following injuries:-

(i) Incised wound of size 2"x1/4"x1/4" on the right

parietal area of scalp (simple in nature caused by sharp

cutting weapon).

(ii) A lacerated wound of size 1"x1/4"x1/4" elbow

joint (simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance).

(iii) A lacerated wound of size 1"x1/4"x1/4" on the

lower aspect of the left jaw (simple in nature and caused by

hard and blunt substance).

(iv) Bruise of size 3"x1" on the lateral aspect of the

knee joint (simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt

substance).

(v) A defused swelling with tenderness with fracture

of underline bone of the left forearm, there was a fracture of

the shaft of the left alna bone, which was apparent from the

X-ray Plate No.-L dated 16.12.2000. This injury was grievous

in nature and was caused by hard and blunt substance.