Mobin Ansari vs State of Jharkhand

The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2003 and order of sentence, dated 18.12.2003,

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 180/1996, whereby six appellants have been convicted by the learned

Trial Court. Each of the accused Iddu Ansari, Maushim Ansari and Kashim Ansari (whose case has been abated) have been convicted for the

offence punishable under Sections 324, 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

years, six months and one month respectively. Similarly each of the accused Samsuddin Ansari, Manna Ansari and Mobin Ansari have been convicted

for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 147, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one year, six months and one month respectively and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.Â

The prosecution case is that parties are own brothers and for using the water collected in the ditch, occurrence took place, in which it is alleged that

the accused persons have assaulted the informant. Iddu Ansari has assaulted the informant on hand by tangi, Maushim Ansari has assaulted the

informant on hand by sword, Samsuddin Ansari assaulted Yunis Ansari by tangi on head and Maushim Ansari assaulted Yunis Ansari by sword on the

right shoulder, Iddu Ansari has assaulted Muslim Ansari by tangi on head, Maushim Ansari has assaulted Rajjak Ansari by sword, on left hand and

Iddu Ansari has assaulted wife of the informant (Malo bibi) by tangi, on head.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Abdul Ansari (P.W. 2), the police has lodged F.I.R. as Baliapur P.S. Case No. 26/1996 dated

06.03.1996 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide

no. 18 of 1996 dated 31.03.1996, against six accused persons/appellants under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

   The cognizance of the offence has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions, where the charge has been framed

on 11.07.2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus,

they were put under trial. Â

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailesh, Advocate has submitted that, it is a case between the own brothers and in which, the appellants

have been convicted. The cause of occurrence is only for using the water collected in the ditch and there was no ‘mens rea’ on the part of the

appellants to commit any criminal offence, rather, it was in the spur of the moment, the occurrence took place. Learned counsel for the appellants has

further submitted, that there is contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that

considering the long rigor of trial since 1996, the appellants may be acquitted, as the occurrence is not with any ‘mens rea’.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence is based on factual materials available on record during the trial and is reasoned judgment, thus this court may not interfere at this

stage only because the occurrence has taken place between the brothers.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailesh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor

and on perusal of the evidence on record, it is true that eleven witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution and their

evidences are consistent to the prosecution case, but the doctor P.W. 11, Dr. Pritpal Singh, who has examined these four injured, has found the injury

to be simple in nature and has not given any opinion with regard to the injury caused upon Yunis Ansari and as such the conviction can be upheld

under Sections 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (except in the

case of Manna Ansari who has been convicted by the learned Trial court under Sections 147, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Iddu Ansari, who

has been convicted under Sections 148, 324, 341 of the Indian Penal Code).Â

   Considering the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants and the materials available on record, since all the injuries were simple in

nature and the injury of Yunis Ansari is not corroborated with the prosecution case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants Maushim Ansari,

Iddu Ansari, Mobin Ansari, Samsuddin Ansari, Manna Ansari are held to be guilty and the conviction awarded by the learned Trial Court is hereby

affirmed. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed except in the case of (Maushim Ansari, appellant no. 2), who has

been convicted by the learned Trial Court under Sections 148, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Iddu Ansari under Sections 148, 324 and 341

of the Indian Penal Code to be modified and convicted under Sections 148, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code by this Court. Hence, the judgment of

conviction has been affirmed with certain modification, with respect to Maushim Ansari and Iddu Ansari.Â

The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed but so far the sentence, which has been awarded by the learned Trial Court is

concerned, this court finds that the occurrence is of the year 1996 and the appellants, who have faced the rigors of trial for more than 22 years, the

fight is between the brother, on a trivial issue of using water from the ditch without having ‘mens rea’ and as such, instead of sentencing the

appellants, the period already undergone by the appellant is sufficient and thus, the appeal is hereby partly allowed with modification in the sentence,

which has already undergone.

In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2003 and order of sentence, dated 18.12.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge- III, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 180/1996 in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 26/1996, consequent to G. R. Case No. 686 of 1996 is

hereby affirmed with modification in the judgment of conviction so far Manna Ansari and Iddu Ansari with order of sentence ‘as’ the period

already undergone.

The appellants, who are on bail are discharged from liability of their bail bond. Â

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.Â