DAUD SK. AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.07.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 59 of 1980/180 of 1993 whereby the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajmahal in G.R. Case No. 307/97(T.R.NO.357/1980) convicting the petitioners, namely, Daud Sk., Yusuf Sk., Naimuddin Sk., Abdul Wahab, Md. Zakaria, Md. Numan and Yakub Sk. under Sections 147,148,323,324 and 325 IPC was up -held and the conviction of petitioners, namely, Daud Sk. and Subhan Sk. was modified from under Section 325 to Section 326 IPC and directed them to undergo imprisonment for nine months and the petitioners, Naimuddin Sk., Subhan Sk. and Abdul Wahab were found guilty under Section 324 IPC and the other petitioners were also found guilty for the offence under Section 147 and 323 IPC and petitioners, namely, Daud Sk., Naimuddin Sk. And Subhan Sk. were held guilty under Section 148 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months, four months and six months and also four months and two months under Section 147 and 323 IPC and sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appellate court and the trial court have failed to appreciate that all the witnesses are related and interested. That the Investigating Officer has not been examined and this has prejudiced the defence. That the appellate court and the trial court failed to appreciate that there is a land dispute. That the independent witnesses named in the FIR had not been examined which is indicative of suppression of the material facts. That Daud Sk. Subhan Sk. And Abdul Wahab had also sustained injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries sustained by the petitioners. That the place of occurrence was the land on which the petitioners were laying claim and the informant were the aggressors and the petitioners had retaliated in self -defence. On the above grounds it is urged that the impugned judgment and order is fit to be set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment/order and materials on record, it is evident that though the petitioners claimed that occurrence had taken place on account of land dispute but no material or document has been produced to substantiate the defence of a bonafide land dispute. The trial court and the appellate court have considered and appreciated the evidence of the witnesses. The testimony of witnesses clearly shows that the petitioners had formed unlawful assembly and were variously armed with pharsa, bhala, lathi etc. and entered the field of the informant and started assaulting the informant and his sons with lathi and pharsa. The occurrence was witnessed by the grand -sons of the informant, namely, Sitabudalin. P.W.7 is the informant, who has testified that when he was in the 'sonabangla' field cultivating paddy crops then all the petitioners -accused persons came and petitioner - Daud Sk. gave a pharsa blow, Naimuddin Sk. gave bhala blow on the head and other petitioners had assaulted with lathi. That Subhan Sk. had assaulted his son, Rehman on his right hand with pharsa. That they were admitted in the hospital. P.W.2, the son of the informant, has supported the allegation of assault by Daud Sk. and Naimuddin Sk. on his father with pharsa. P.W.2 was also admitted in the hospital. P.W.3 -Md. Mumtaz Ali was also assaulted and he has supported the case of the prosecution.