Likhan Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the sole surviving appellant as well as Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

It appears that the appellant no. 1 and 2 have died during the pendency of this appeal and only surviving appellant (Likhan Yadav) is contesting the impugned judgment and order.

Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by Learned in Sessions Case No. 96/2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 21.04.2003 at about 06:30 PM, cow and ox of Anandi Yadav were grazing in the onion field of the informant (Parwati Devi) and she dispersed the cattle, meanwhile, son of the Anandi Yadav namely, Likhan Yadav (present appellant) came there, then informant complained him that once her (informant’s) goat grazed in the field of accused, then he was very much annoyed, but today your cattle have grazed my onion crop” why you let your cattle in her onion field? Upon this, statement of the informant some hot talk took place between them. It is further alleged that the son of informant namely Manoj Kumar Yadav also arrived there, then accused Likhan Yadav started scuffling with him, also in the meanwhile Bhoti Yadav and Ganesh Yadav came there and all started assaulting to her son by fists and slaps. The informant attempted to pacify the matter and her son also escaped from there, meanwhile, this appellant Likhan Yadav picked up a piece of brick and threw upon her son causing injury on left side of waist and Bhoti Yadav also started brick batting upon the informant causing injury on her nose. The villagers namely Dharmendra Yadav, Munni Lal Yadav and others arrived at the place of occurrence, then accused persons fled away.

On the basis of above information, Meharma (Thakur Gangati) P.S. Case No. 74/2003 was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323,

337/34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused persons including present appellant.

After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 325, 337, 307/34.

After taking cognizance of the offences, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. The charges were explained to the appellants to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:-

Exhibit 1: Signature of Manoj Kumar Yadav on FardBeyan.

Exhibit 2: Two Injury reports.

Exhibit 3: Complete FardBeyan

Exhibit 4: Signature of Officer-In-Charge on FardBeyan

Exhibit 5: Formal F.I.R.

The case of defence is that denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

The learned trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the dispute arose between the parties in a sudden manner. The injuries sustained by the informant in this case are opined to be simple in nature. The injuries sustained by the informant are not on the vital part of the body, as such, no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is constituted in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as there was no intention or knowledge as required to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as proved by the prosecution.. Hence, conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. of the appellant is fit to be set aside and at best appellant may be held guilty for the offences under Section 323 of the I.P.C. for which he has been sufficiently punished during the course of trial.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has properly apprised the evidence available on record.

I have gone through the entire evidences available on record along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

Out of seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, the most relevant witness is P.W. 5 Dr. Tarun Kumar Mishra who has examined the injured persons and found injury on the nose of informant which was opined to be simple in nature. Similarly, the nature of injury sustained by son of the informant Manoj Kumar Yadav was also opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and other injuries was opined to be caused by sharp cutting object. But, the admitted case of the prosecution is that it was caused by pelting of brick and the injuries were found simple in nature. It is also admitted fact that both injured persons remained in the hospital for their treatment only for one night.

Under the factual background of the case as discussed above, the required intention and knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is absolutely lacking in this case. It is utter surprising that learned trial court has arrived at conclusion that ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. are available in this case against the appellant.

The origin of the dispute was cattle grazing in the field of the informant and injuries are also simple in nature which attracts the offences under Section 323 and 504 of the I.P.C only. Therefore, conviction and sentence for appellant for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside.

Upon close scrutiny of evidence available on record, it appears that the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. is proved against the surviving appellant. Hence, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the I.P.C.

It is also brought on record that it was the first offence of the appellant and he has never been convicted for any offence. The case is of the year 2003 and during the pendency of this appeal also no criminal activity has been attributed against the appellant. Under such circumstances, the appellant deserves to be released after due admonition by the concerned trial court extending the benefit of Section 3 of Probation Offenders Act, 1958.

Considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent he is directed to be released after due admonition extending the benefit of Section 3 of Probation Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, appellant is directed to appear before the concerned trial court/or successor within three months from the date of this judgment and the trial court is directed to release the appellant after due admonition under Section 3 of Probation Offenders Act, 1958.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in sentence.

Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.