PESH IMAM QURESHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.2002 passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 147 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant stand convicted under Sec. 295A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years Under Sec. 295A and 1 year for Under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently;

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 27.2.1997 the informant Lakhan Choudhary along with other witnesses was going to Daltonganj from their village Semar P.S. Chainpur when they saw the appellant carrying beef in a cloth on his bicycle and blood falling on the road. As further stated when they asked the appellant why he was carrying the beef without taking precaution that blood may not fall, the appellant became angry. The informant asserted that as religious places lie by the side of the road they had asked the appellant to take precaution. However the appellant getting angry threatened them that they will be taught a lesson. As per prosecution version by 9.30 a.m. the appellant along with 5 -6 others named in the FIR arrived in village on a Jeep and started assaulting the villagers indiscriminately. They further tried to throw Kail Choudhary in a well.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has committed mistake by accepting the prosecution case that he was carrying beef with intention to hurt the feelings of Hindues and has insulted the informant and others. It is also asserted that in view of the acquittal of other accused persons the prosecution case has not been believed by the trial court. However the conviction of the appellant in spite of witnesses turning hostile and contradicting each other does not deserve to be confirmed. Sri. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the prosecution version is taken to be true the appellant has not acted in any manner to hurt the villagers feelings and to cause insult to the informant and others.