CHANDAN HEMBROM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 21 of 199713 of 1997 whereby and where under all the appellants have been convicted under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.3 has also been convicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and all the appellant have been sentenced to undergo R.L for three months for the offence under section 323/34 of the L.P.C. and appellant no. 3 has also been sentenced to undergo R.L. for six months for the offence under section 379 of the L.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to their conviction are that the informant Paul Hembrom was plucking dates on 21.6.1996 from a tree situated on Garmazura land in village Gosaipur P.S. Pakur when the appellant Chandan Hembrom objected to it. Thereafter other appellants came there armed with Lathi and assaulted him. As further stated when informant raised alarm, villagers assembled there and in the meantime appellant Emanuel Hembrom snatched his wrist watch and fled away. The informant was taken to Pakur Hospital for his treatment where his statement was recorded by Pakur Police on the basis of which Pakur P.S. Case No. 121 of 1996 was registered on 21.6.96 under sections 307, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation, submitted the Charge -sheet under sections 307, 323, 341, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The trial court after examining the witnesses finally found and held them guilty as mentioned above under sections 323/34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.

(3.) I have gone through the materials available on the case recodes alongwith submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is admitted case on records that alleged incident took place for dispute regarding plucking of Palm Dates. The informant is a Government servant and village pradhan also. He has admitted that he was not assaulted by all of three, however, asserted that he was assaulted thrice with Lathi resulting in bleeding injury on his head. According to him the appellant have applied for settlement of land also. The prosecution case was not supported by P.W. 3 Sabia Hembrom, P.W. 4 Lala Hembrom, P.W. 5. Sahib Soren and they were declared hostile. P.W. 7 is a formal witness proving the FIR as Ext. -4. P.W. 1 Mangal Hembromhas supported the informant; according to him the informant was given five blows with Lathi. However he has admitted in cross -examination that police has not examined him neither he has given any statement before the police. He admitted in para 3 of the cross examination that there was dispute between him and the appellants. The doctor who examined the informant at 1.30 p.m. on 21.6.1996 has found one injury on the temporal region of scalp vide injury report marked as Ext. 1 on which he referred the patient for X -ray. However he found the injury to be simple in nature vide Ext. 1/1 (X -ray plates). The defence has filed certain documents as Exts. A and S showing that there was dispute regarding the land between the village pradhan and appellants. It further shows that a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has been started.