CHARAK MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Appeals arise out of a common Judgment of Conviction dtd. 12/12/2006 and Order of Sentence dtd. 21/12/2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.324 of 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Giridih by which appellants have been convicted for offences under Ss. 148, 341, 323, 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No separate sentence has been awarded for offence under Sec. 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of Jahimuddin Ansari is that on 22/11/2003, at around 9:00 A.M., he, his father Ramjan Mian, and his mother Soohra Khatoon were harvesting paddy in their field when a group of men from the same village suddenly attacked them. They were armed with lathi, sword, farsa. Jahimuddin and his father were badly assaulted and his father became unconscious. His mother was also assaulted with lathi. The fight started because the accused claimed title over the land, while informant's family also claimed title. During the assault, the attackers also looted valuables like a silver necklace, a gold earring and a Titan watch.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the statements given by prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other. P.W. 4 has turned hostile who stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence. P.W. 6 in his statement has mentioned that no Panchayati was ever held for the land dispute. It is their case that the land belongs to the appellants and the informant forcibly tried to dispossess them. There is genuine land dispute also.