Mukund Prasad Singh And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2006 passed by Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 253/1996 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Sections 323/149 of the IPC. These appellants also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 324/149 of the IPC and in default thereof, further R.I. for one month.

Sarath P.S. Case No.110/1994 has been registered on 05.11.1994 on the written report of Ramesh Chandra Singh (P.W.-4) under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/337/379 of the IPC. It has been alleged that these appellants alongwith other two co-accused, namely, Lalita Kumari and Bulu Kumari formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of common object has caused grievous hurt to the informant, namely, Ramesh Chandra Singh (P.W.-4) and Kamakhya Singh (P.W.-5) with sharp edged weapon and also took away paddy from the field. As per the F.I.R., these appellants were armed with lathi, bhala, stone and knife.

On completion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against these appellants under Sections 148, 326/149, 379/149 & 307/149 of the IPC. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of sessions and ultimately, charge has been framed under Sections 148, 326/149, 307/149 and 379/149 of the IPC to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the prosecution story altogether eight witnesses have been examined.

P.W-1, Naresh Prasad Singh, P.W.-2, Baldeo Singh and P.W.-3, Shankar Prasad Singh have been declared hostile.

P.W.-4, Ramesh Chandra Singh (informant) has supported the allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.-1/1. It has been pointed out that the informant has improved the prosecution story and now the specific weapon has been given in the hand of these appellants and other co-accused. As per his deposition Mukund Prasad Singh and Badri Prasad Singh were armed with farsa. Dilip Prasad Singh was armed with katari. Pashupati Prasad Singh was armed with lathi. Bulu Kumari and Lalita Kumari were having brickbats.

P.W.-5, Kamakhya Singh, who is another injured witness, has supported the allegation made in the F.I.R.

P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are own brother. The suggestion has been given that there is a land dispute between the parties and forged document has been prepared by the informant for claiming title over the disputed land.

P.W.-6 Shyam Sundar Pandit is Advocate Clerk, who has proved the handwriting of A.S.I., namely, Ram Bachan Singh, which has been marked as Ext.-2 and signature on F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext-3.

P.W.-7 Upendra Pandit is Advocate Clerk, who has claimed himself conversant with the Doctor, namely, O.P. Srivastav and has proved his signature over the injury report which has been marked as annexure-4 and 5.

P.W.-8, Dr. Rameshwar Mahto, who is the then Dy. Supt. Deoghar Hospital, has proved the injury report of Ram Chandra Singh (P.W.-4) and Kamakhya Singh (P.W.-5) on 05.11.1994.

It is strange that injury report has been proved by Dr. Rameshwar Mahto and the signature of Dr. O.P. Srivastava has been proved by advocate clerk not conversant with the doctor.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

From perusal of record, it is evident that the alleged injury has not been proved. In the absence of any injury, the conviction of these appellants under Sections 323/149 and 324/149 of the IPC is not sustainable. All the independent witnesses have been declared hostile. The claimed injured witnesses are own brother and they are having a land dispute with these appellants.

In view of material available on record and discussion made herein above, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of Sections 323/149 and 324/149 of the IPC alleged against these appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted from the above charges.

Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2006 passed by Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 253/1996 is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

Since these appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.