Judgment:
Cr. Revision No. 63 of 2005 --------- Against the judgment dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal no. 56 of 1996 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 747 of 1991 (T.R. No. 205 of 1996). --------- 1. Charan Boipai 2. Dara Singh Boipai Both sons of Doko Boipai, R/o Village Manda, Tola- Tirilkutu, P.S.- Tonto, Singhbhum (West) ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Shina, A.P.P. --------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- By Court: Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Shina, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal no. 56 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 747 of 1991 (T.R. No. 205 of 1996) by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for three years has been affirmed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are several discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses which has not been properly appreciated by the learned courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and therefore the place of occurrence could not be established. Submission has also been advanced that the Doctor who was examined as P.W.7 had clearly opined that the injuries could have been sustained on fall on a sharp cutting weapon and therefore it cannot be said that it was the -2- petitioners who had inflicted injuries upon the informant. An alternative argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence be reduced considering the fact that the petitioners have remained in custody for some time and are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1991. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. A First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that the informant had gone for puja in the house of one Ram Singh Bari. It is alleged that while he was talking with Ram Singh Bari and Pandu Bari both the petitioners variously armed with Sword and ‘Farsa’ had started assault on the informant as a result of which the informant sustained cut injuries on his left shoulder and left thumb. It has also been alleged that the Sword and ‘Farsa’ were snatched from the accused persons by the persons present there. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa vide judgment dated 23.08.1996 had convicted the petitioners for the offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 1996 which however was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa on 16.07.2004. In course of trial the prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Md. Wahid Hassan is a formal witness. P.W.2 Ram Singh Bari is an eye witness to the occurrence who had disclosed that the petitioner no. 1 was carrying Sword whereas the petitioner no. 2 was having a ‘Farsa’. This witness had stated about the assault committed upon the informant. He has further stated that he and P.W.3 had forcible snatched the Sword and ‘Farsa’ from the petitioners. It has also been stated that no previous enmity was existing between the informant and the petitioners. P.W.3 -3- Pandu Bari is also an eye witness who apart from the role played by the petitioners had also stated that he along with P.W.2 had snatched the Sword and ‘Farsa’ from the petitioners. P.W.4 Jaina Bari is seizure list witness. P.W.5 Chandra Mohan Bari is also a seizure list witness. P.W.6 Jena Mundari is the informant of the present case who had stated that while he was talking with P.W.2 and P.W.3 the accused persons had all of a sudden armed with Sword and ‘Farsa’ had started assaulting him as a result of which he suffered cut injuries. P.W.7 Dr. B.D. Sinha was posted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and he had examined the informant. This witness had stated that he found three injuries on the person of the informant which could be by sword. He has further stated that two of the injuries were found to be simple in nature whereas the injury of the thumb was opined to be grievous. P.W.8 Pius Bhengra is a formal witness. The prosecution thus rests upon the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6. The informant who has been examined as P.W.6 has narrated the entire incident of the assault committed by the petitioners with sword and ‘Farsa’ and he had suffered cut injuries on his shoulder and thumb. The evidence of P.W.6 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were present when the incident had taken place and who by snatching the Sword and ‘Farsa’ from the petitioners had prevented further harm to the informant. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 are consistent with respect to the manner of assault made by the petitioners and the injuries suffered by the informant. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 are confidence inspiring and in the background of their evidence non- examination of the Investigating Officer pales into in significance as the witnesses have clearly stated about the place of occurrence and no discrepancy had arisen with respect to the same. Argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the injuries which may be on account of fall on a sharp cutting weapon but in view of the statement of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 it is established beyond doubt that it was the petitioners who had assaulted the informant with a Sword and ‘Farsa’ leading to the informant suffering cut -4- injuries which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Such circumstances, therefore, have rightly been considered by the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court has also on consideration of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment passed against the petitioners convicting them for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1991. The petitioners also seems to have undergone considerable period in custody. Out of three injuries two of the injuries were found to be simple in nature and only one grievous injury was found on the thumb of the informant which is not a vital part of the body. Such circumstance definitely entitles the petitioners for reconsideration of the sentence imposed upon them. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is, hereby, modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 10th July, 2017 Alok/NAFR