RAM CHANDRA KEWAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (three appellants) have preferred this appeal before this Court for setting aside the judgment dated 31.7.2000 passed by Dr. S.P. Thakur Additional Sessions Judge -ll Court, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 287 of 1996 convicting the appellant No. 1, namely, Arjun Kewat under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting the other two appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Kewat and Ramesh Kewat under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and also for setting aside the order dated 31.7.2009 whereby the appellant No. 1 namely, Arjun Kewat had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and other two appellants, namely, Ram Chandra Kewat and Ramesh Kewat had been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in both the aforesaid offences.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.10.1995 at about 9 P.M. the aforesaid appellants trespassed into the house of the informant in Godhar Basti, near Balu Banker, P.S. -Kenduadih, Dist. - Dhanbad with a criminal intention and they assaulted the informant Ram Khelawan Pandit with fists and slaps and also with a sharp cutting weapon with intent to kill him. They also abused him and wrongfully restrained him in his room. The informant lodged the FIR in support of the aforesaid occurrence and after investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge -sheet against all the three appellants under Sections 323, 341, 506, 452, 504 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution to prove its case, examined six witnesses amongst them P.W. 4 is the informant, P. W. 3 is the wife of the informant, P.W. 1 Yadu Pandit, P.W. 2 Raghu Pandit, P.W. 5 is Dr. Manjeet Singh Sandhu and P.W. 6 Nisar Ahmad is the I.O. of the case. Defence is the totally denial of the offences. The aforesaid appellants have also denied their guilt in their statement given under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits, the trial court convicted the aforesaid three appellants as stated above by the impugned judgment.

(3.) DR . Laik has further submitted that even under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. the appellants, namely, Arjun Kewat has very specifically stated that on 16.10.1995 at about 9.30 P.M. the informant, Ram Khelawan Pandit of the present case and Raghu Pandit alongwith few other persons came to his shop and assaulted him on his head by Lathi on which he had received serious injury on his head. Furthermore, all those persons assaulted him on his chest and face also. But the trial court has neither discussed nor considered all these aspects in the judgment. Thus, it is very clear that the prosecution has not described the actual manner of the occurrence.