LAWS(JHAR)-2018-11-136

SURENDRA KISKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On November 29, 2018
Surendra Kisku Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dtd. 27/2/2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1991/108 of 2001, arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case no.136 of 1988 dtd. 20/6/1988, corresponding to G.R. No.358 of 1988, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence committed and punishable under Sec. 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of informant, Parmeshwar Murmu (P.W.8) recorded by Sub-Inspector, Binod Kumar, Mihijam Police Station at Sahadal(Rangadih) on 19/6/1988 at 12.00 hrs., wherein, the informant has stated that, today in the morning at 7.00 A.M., he was ploughing the land of his bari for sowing maize crop. At that time sons of his maternal uncle namely, Jogindra Kisku and Surendra Kisku, armed with bow and arrow came there and abused the informant and prohibited him from cultivating the land. Thereupon, the informant told them that, since the land belongs to him, he will cultivate the same. It is further alleged that, as soon as the informant started ploughing the land, both the accused persons namely, Jogendra Kisku and Surendra Kisku assaulted him by means of bow and arrow and one of the arrow hit the abdomen of the informant. The informant got injured and fell down. Thereupon, the accused persons fled away. In the meantime, covillagers assembled there have seen the occurrence. The cause of occurrence is that father of the informant was residing there as Gharjamai and was in possession of 4 acres of land, which at present, is in the possession of the informant and these accused persons wanted to dispossess him.