SULEMAN MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 7620 of 2016 : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

(2.) These appellants are before this Court in the instant appeal [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1300/2016], on being convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years of S.I. for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further one year of S.I., S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and two years of S.I. for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence is as a result of deliberate acts of the informant party in cultivating a piece of land, claimed by these appellants as per Bhugatbandha Deed (Ext.-B). The incident led to institution to an F.I.R. bearing Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2012 registered by the appellants for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. (Ext.-A/3), prior in time to the instant FIR of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2012 instituted by the person of the informant party against the accused persons including the appellants under Sections 147, 323/149, 325/149, 307/149 and 148 IPC. Other accused have been convicted of lesser offence and sentence to undergo lesser duration. They are before this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1200/2016 where, they have been admitted to bail. The accusation against these appellants are of having inflicted injury through farsa, sword, Iron Rod etc. on the informant Safaul Ansari, Usman Mian, Yusuf Mian, the brother of the informant and Noorjahan Bibi, mother of the informant. It is however, submitted that the accusation are exaggerated and the opinion of the medical expert shows that injuries are simple in nature, except that of Yusuf Mian. The accusation of assault upon Yusuf Mian is of Yakub Mian and Nasir Mian i.e. Appellants No. 2 and 3, respectively. However, injuries reported by the Doctor is lacerated wound on the scalp and the grievous injury is on the forearms. Therefore, these two appellants are also entitled to the benefit of doubt as specific role of the individual person of assault have not been imputed. Otherwise also accusation of use of farsa on the head does not stand corroborated by the injuries, reported by the Doctor. The instant matter relates to a case and counter case over the claim of ownership and possession of a piece of land. Appellants, therefore, would be subjected to unnecessary incarceration, if not granted privilege of suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, they have made such a prayer in I.A. No. 7620 of 2016.