Bhim Ojha vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.9.2002 passed by Shri Gautam Mahapatra, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994, by which judgment he found the Appellant guilty under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentence to undergo S.I. for one month u/s 341 of the Indian Penal Code and three years S.I. u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is no evidence that any injury was caused to the informant, Pandu Ojha. Moreover, in absence of any medical evidence conviction of the Appellant u/s 341 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and only fit to be set aside. Moreover, even the informant was not examined, hence the conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that two witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 & 2 who are the eye witnesses and have fully supported the prosecution case.

After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of first information report lodged by the informant, Pandu Ojha giving a Fardbeyan to the Officer-in-Charge, Chandankiyari on 11.5.90 stating therein that while he was performing the Puja for his Yajmans, Khodu Manjhi and Muktheswar Manjhi. Then, the accused, Bhim Ojha and Subal Ojha came there variously armed with Tangi and Farsa and asked the Pandu Ojha, as to why he is performing his Puja for those Manjhis, who are his Yajmans and demanded to take half Dakshina. Then, the accused persons gave him Farsa blow, causing injury and ran away.

On the basis of the said Fardbeyan police registered a case under Sections 324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case.

Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the court of sessions and lastly tried by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. IV, who found the Appellant guilty.

In course of trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and two defence witnesses have also been examined in this case.

P.W.1, Kharu Manjhi. He only stated that on the date of occurrence 8 years back when his priest who was performing the Puja then this accused came along with Subal Ojha and assaulted the informant, Pandu Ojha. Subsequently, the informant was taken to hospital for treatment. He further stated that Pandu Ojha is no more but Bhim Ojha is present. He further stated that Pandu Ojha had received 30-40 injuries.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen 12 injuries by tangi.

P.W.2, Mukhteswar Manjhi. He stated that at the time of occurrence 8 years back when Puja was being formed by his Purohit then the accused along with Subal Ojha came there and gave a farsa blow on Pandu Ojha and ran away.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen about 5 injuries on the body of Pandu Ojha.

P.W.3, Batul Manjhi. He stated that when he was informed about the occurrence by P.Ws. 1 & 2, namely, Kharu Manjhi and Mukhteswar Manjhi. After getting this information he went near the Bandh he found the injured lying on the ground. According to him there was injury only on his hand and no injury on his head or neck.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen three injuries each in the left hand and right hand of the victim.

P.W.4, Basant Manjhi. He also stated that he came to know that Pandu Ojha was assaulted by the accused, Bhim Ojha then he went to place of occurrence and found that the injured was being taken to the hospital on a cot for treatment.

P.W.5, Babu Ram Manjhi. He is also a hearsay witness.

P.W.6, Basudeo Jha is a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R.

P.W.7, Basudeo Jha is a formal witness and has proved the signature in the F.I.R.

P.W.8, Sudhir Tiwari, is also a hearsay witness

From the evidences, it appears that the informant, Pandu Ojha was not examined and it is difficult to say as to what injuries he had received. The doctor was also not examined. The injury report has also not proved. As far as injuries caused on the person of the injured is concerned, there is contradictory evidence while P.W.1 has said that there were 30-40 injuries on the body of Pandu Ojha, P.W.2 has said that there were 4-5 injuries on the body of Pandu Ojha. P.W.3 has said there were only 6 injuries on the person of Pandu Ojha. So, there is difficult to say that as to whether Pandu Ojha had only three injuries on the hand or 30-40 injuries on the different parts of his body and what was the nature of the injuries.

In absence of the evidence of the doctor, I.O. and the informant the prosecution case has become doubtful and the Appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.9.2002 passed by Shri Gautam Mahapatra, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

The Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the bondage of his bail bond.