NARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals have been preferred arising out of common judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 298 of 2004 (Koderma P.S. Case No. 214 of 2003) by which the Appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 323, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year, six months and seven years respectively on each count. However, all the seven Appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Koderma P.S. Case No. 214 of 2003 was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant-Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav with the allegation that on 15.06.2003 (Sunday) his neighbour Yadav with the Yadav along with his nephew Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav and his son Ajay Yadav and Krishna Yadav were making preparation of liquor illegally in his land whereupon the informant opposed their illegal act which resulted into scuffle and it was alleged that ail the accused person started beating him, his son Sukhdeo Yadav and his wife Bishni Devi, In the same sequence of assault the wife of Narayan Yadav, namely Jageshwar Devi, wife of Binod Yadav, namely, Bhatni Devi and wife of Kuwar Yadav, namely, Sijni Devi also joined their hand with the assailants by holding Tangi', 'Garasa' and 'Kudali' whereas other named accused were holding sticks and Danda. The son of the informant sustained six injuries on his head alleged to be caused by blows of Lathi, Farsa and Tangi and his condition became precarious. The victims were removed to Domchanch Police Outpost where the statement of the informant was recorded and for the better management of the injuries the son of the informant was referred to Sadar Hospital, Koderma. The informant further gathered on 20.06.2007 after five days of the alleged occurrence that the accused persons had broken open the lock of his house and removed all their belongings and had extended threat that the informant and other inmates of his house would be killed in case they would return back. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons. A written report was presented on 20.06.2003 before the Domchanch Police Outpost by the informant which was forwarded to Koderma Police Station on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. The I.O. after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Appellants and one Krishna Yadav under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides other Sections. All the eight accused were put on trial including the Appellants and on conclusion each of them was convicted as referred to hereinbefore against substantive sentence.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. V.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the Appellants at the outset submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place on 15.06.2003 at about 4 p.m. and the written report was presented on 20.06.2003 to which an F.I.R. was lodged but the same was received in the Court on 23.06.2003 without plausible explanation to such inordinate delay caused in lodging the F.I.R. and its receipt in the Court. It would be relevant to mention that the informant- Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav, who was an important witness to the alleged occurrence could not be examined in the Court because of his death during pendency of the trial. The conviction recorded against the accused Appellants was based upon the evidence of only four witness viz. P.W. 1 Bisni Devi, P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Yadav, P.W. 3 Rajshri Rai, (second) Investigating Officer and P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Murmu, who had examined the injuries of the victims. Mr. Singh further attracted the attention that there were two injuries reports of Bisni Devi issued by P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Murmu, who admitted in his evidence that the first injury report Ext. 1 was proved on behalf of the prosecution whereas another injury report was proved Ext. A by the defence bearing glaring contradictions. The injury report of Sukhdeo Yadav was proved Ext. B and the injury report of the informant Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav was proved Ext. C. Besides these injury reports, no other document could be proved on behalf of the prosecution. It would be relevant to mention, learned Sr. Counsel added that even the Fard Bayan or the F.I.R. could not be proved to substantiate the allegation for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the prosecution case and in that manner the Appellants were highly prejudiced for not getting an opportunity to cross-examine the informant