HARADHAN RAJWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Both the appeals arises out of common judgment dated 28.09.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 1998. Appellants Dasu Rajwar and Chinvas Rajwar (in criminal appeal no. 693 of 2002) have been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years. They have also been convicted under Section148 of I.P.C. for which they have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year. Further they have been convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and senteced to undergo R. I. for one year. Sentences were to run concurrently. Appellants Haradhan Rajwar, Tarapad Rajwar and Padlochan Rajwar (in criminal appeal no. 692 of 2002) have been convicted under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and they have been further convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The proseuction case in short is that on 19.10.1997 at about 5:30 in the morning all the accused persons assaulted the informant Tarapad Mahto (P.W. 4) by Lathi, Farsa and Tangi causing injury on his person about which he reported to the police on the same day. Appellant Dasu assaulted him on head by Tangi while appellant Chinivas assaulted him by Tangi on his back. Appellants Tarapad, Padam and Haradhan assaulted him by Lathi causing severe head injuries. Dasu snatched Rs. One thousand from his pocket. Chinivas picked the Chadar belonging to the informant. After hearing halla, the elder brother of the informant Nishakar Mahatha (P. W. 2) came on the spot. He was also assauled by stone and Lathi and sustained injuries on his forehead. Villager Magan Tiwari (P.W. 1) and Akinder Atiwari brought him at house. Though the cause of incident has not been disclosed in the F.I.R., but P.W. 4 said that there is land dispute between the informant and his uncle who hired the appellants for assaulting the informant.

(3.) Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants assailted the impugned judgments on various grounds. She submitted that there was only one incised wound on the head of the informant and all other injuries were not on the vital parts of the body and were found simple in nature by the doctor including the injury sustained by Nishakar Mahatha (P.W. 2). She further submitted that prosecution has tried to improve its case in the evidence. She lastly submitted that the appellants have suffered this case from the year 1997 and no useful purpose will be served by sending them to jail for serving the balance sentence.