Bodhan Pradhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.5.2005 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in ST No.156/2004 whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction

Sentence

Appellant No.1 Bodhan Pradhan Under Section 325 of IPC.

RI for 04 months & 24 days, fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for 02 months.

Appellants No. 2 & 3 Tem Ram Pradhan and Tej Ram Pradhan Under Section 325/34 of IPC.

RI for 04 months & 24 days, fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for 02 months.

In compliance of the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sariya, Distt. Raigarh has submitted a report that appellant No.1 Bodhan Pradhan has died during treatment of brain hemorrhage in MMI Hospital, Raipur on 22.4.2011. Along with the said report, death certificate of appellant No.1 issued by the said hospital, statement of Ashok Pradhan (son of the deceased appellant) and the certificate issued by Sarpanch of Village Panchayat-Lukapara, Distt. Raigarh to this effect, have also been annexed.

Since there is no application for prosecuting this appeal on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased appellant Bodhan Pradhan, the instant appeal in respect of appellant No.1 Bodhan Pradhan stands dismissed as having been abated.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.8.2004 at around 10.20 am, one Panchanan Kolta informed the complainant Shaukilal Sahu that Bodhan and others have beaten his cousin Jogender Sahu and he is lying in the agricultural field. Thereupon, mother of Jogender and Dayasagar Kolta went to Kudrikaal Khaar where they found Jogender lying. On being asked about the assailants, Jogender informed that while he was returning to his home after cutting grass, Bodhan Kolta, Tejram Kolta and Tekram Kolta came from behind and started assaulting him saying that he got their field grazed by the cattle. He told that Bodhan assaulted him with spade, Tekram with Kanwar and Tejram with hands and fists. According to him, the incident was witnessed by Ravi Kolta. On report being lodged to the above effect by Shaukilal Sahu, the offence was registered against the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC vide Ex.P/1. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the Patwari. The bloodstained scarf tied around the head of the inured was seized vide Ex.P/4; bloodstained and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P/5; pursuant to the memorandum (Ex.P/6) of appellant Temram, a club was seized from him vide Ex.P/8 and likewise, memorandum Ex.P/7 of appellant Bodhan led to seizure of weapon of offence spade vide Ex.P/9.

Upon medical examination of injured Jogendar Sahu on 25.8.2004 at 2 pm, the following injuries were noticed by Dr. G. Sahu vide Ex.P/12:

i. lacerated wound, 6 x ½ cm x bone deep over the vertex of the head,

ii. lacerated wound, 7 x ½ cm x bone deep over the left side of the head;

iii. bruise with abrasion, 6 x 4 cm over the lower ½ part of the right arm;

iv. bruise, 8 x 4 cm over upper end of the right forearam;

v. bruise, 5 x 3 cm over the middle part of the right leg;

vi. lacerated wound, 1 ½ x ¼ x ½ cm lower end left arm;

vii. bruise, 8 x 5 cm over the left arm, lower 1/3rd part;

viii. bruise 3 x 2 cm left forearm lower 1/3rd part;

ix. bruise, 7 x 5 cm lateral side of left leg;

x. bruise, 4 x 2 cm with lacerated wound 1 ½ x 1/3 x ¼ cm over left leg;

xi. bruise, 6 x 4 cm over the left thigh.

The doctor opined that all the injuries are caused within six hours by hard and blunt object, and advised for x-ray of the skull bone, left arm, right forearm and left leg and referred the injured to the District Hospital, Raigarh for x-ray and treatment.

During investigation, dying declaration of injured Jogendar Sahu was also recorded vide Ex.P/14 wherein he stated the same facts. As per x-ray report (Ex.P/15), the injured suffered fracture of upper 1/3rd of fibula left side without callus formation and in rest of x-rays, no bony injury was seen. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC.

The trial Court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellants, which was denied by them. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Thereafter, statement under Section 313 of CrPC of the appellants were recorded in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

The trial Court after appreciation of the overall oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellants Tem Ram and Tej Ram would submit that the impugned judgment is per se contrary to law and facts available on record. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from the vice of contradiction and omissions rendering it unreliable. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the complicity of the appellants Temram and Tej Ram in the crime in question beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the memorandums (Ex.P/6 & P/7) have not been proved in this case. There is no eyewitness to the incident supporting the prosecution case. Being so, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and consequently, the appellants Tem Ram and Tej Ram deserve to be acquitted of the charge.

Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the trial Court having regard to all the relevant aspects of the matter in light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants Tem Ram and Tej Ram under Section 325/34 of IPC which warrants no interference by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

PW-15 Dr. D.K. Tandan states that on 25.8.2004 he conducted x-ray examination of skull, left arm, left leg and chest of injured Jogendar Sahu and noticed no bony injury on skull, left arm and left leg but found one fracture of left fibula bone vide Ex.P/15. The aforesaid evidence remains uncontroverted in cross-examination and as such, the prosecution has successfully proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.8.2004 injured Jogendar sustained grievous injuries.

PW-1 Jogendar Sahu, injured, states in para-5 of his cross-examination that he was attacked from behind by the accused persons and he has no knowledge as to what weapon was carried by which of the accused persons at that time. After sustaining injuries, he fell down unconscious and regained consciousness after about an hour when he was made to drink water by his elder brother Shaukilal. In para-7 he categorically states that Bodhan (deceased appellant) assaulted him with spade on his head twice. He states that he disclosed about the incident of assault for the first time in hospital.

PW-2 Shaukilal states that he was informed by Panchanand that Bodhan, Tejram and Tekram are assaulting Jogendar. This witness has admitted his signature on FIR (Ex.P/1) and states that he only signed the said document at the instance of the police. After being declared hostile by the prosecution, he further states that he had lodged the FIR.

PW-3 Panchanand Sahu states that Dhapleshwar told him that there was quarrel between Jogendar and Bodhan. In para-2 he states that he did not witness the incident. In para-6 he has stated that except the head injury, he did not see any injury on the body of Jogendar.

PW-4 Ravi, PW-5 Babulal Sahu and PW-6 Sumitra Bai have turned hostile and did not state anything against the appellants.

PW-8 Kirti Sahu and PW-9 Ramesh Kumar Sahu admitted their signatures on the seizure memos Ex.P/4 & P/5 respectively.

PW-10 Shyamsundar and PW-11 Sahas have admitted their signatures on the memorandums and seizure memos (Ex.P/6 to P/10) but did not support the prosecution case.

PW-13 Dr. G. Sahu medically examined injured Jogendar Sahu on 25.8.2004 and noticed as many as 11 injuries as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Close scrutiny of the evidence on record makes it clear that injured Jogendar Sahu did not lodge the FIR (Ex.P/1) whereas it was lodged by PW-2 Shaukilal but this witness did not see the incident and lodged the report on being informed by Panchanand Sahu (PW-3) about the incident of assault on the injured. However, PW-3 Panchanand has stated that he did not see the incident and he was informed about the same by one Dhapleshwar but said Dhapleshwar has not been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court for the reasons best known to it.

From the evidence of injured Jogendar Sahu (PW-1), it is seen that he only states against Bodhan (deceased appellant) that he assaulted him on his head twice with a spade. According to the injured, the assailants attacked on him from behind and he did not see as to what weapon was being carried by which of the assailants and also has no knowledge as to who were the persons assaulted on different parts of his body. Though the medical evidence supports the prosecution case to the extent that the injured Jogendar Sahu sustained certain injuries including one grievous injury of fracture of fibula bone but the prosecution has failed to prove involvement of appellants No. 2 & 3 Tem Ram and Tej Ram Pradhan in the crime in question beyond all reasonable doubt. Being so, the impugned judgment of the trial Court holding appellants No. 2 & 3 guilty of the crime in question is not sustainable in light of the evidence available on record and is liable to be set aside to that extent.

In the result, the appeal, insofar as it relates to appellant No. 2 Tem Ram Pradhan and appellant No.3 Tej Ram Pradhan, is allowed whereas it stands dismissed as abated in respect of appellant No.1 Bodhan Pradhan. Appellants No. 2 Tem Ram Pradhan and appellant No.3 Tej Ram Pradhan are acquitted of the charge under Section 325/34 of IPC.