AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the state.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2002 passed in S.T. No. 214 of 1992 by Shri S.N. Prasad, 2nd, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Chaibasa, by which judgment he found the appellants guilty u/s 323/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and he also found guilty u/s 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years, all the sentences have been run concurrently.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that it appears from the evidence of the witnesses that it is admitted case of land disputes between the parties since long. On the date of occurrence there is a case and counter case from both sides. It will also appear that prosecution failed to .examine the doctor and in absence of injury or injury report the conviction u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
On the other hand learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that the accused-appellant Paulus Munda caused injury by arrow on the persons of Noyal Munda and Rafel Chtrwa. In that view of the matter conviction u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the trial Court does not need any interference by this court.
After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, P.W. 2, Bilkan Munda, on 13.11.91 at 8.00 P.M. stating therein that he was having land dispute with Paulus Munda for the last three years. He has further stated that the said land belongs to him so the villagers used to assist him to plough, cultivate and to cut the crops from the said land and he had grown paddy this year in the said disputed land. He is further stated that on 13.11.91 at 10.00 A.M. he along with Niranjan Munda, Aliya, Habil Munda, Junul Munda, Gowarial Munda, Noyal Munda, Mojesh Munda and Rafile Chtrwa alongwith some other villagers were going to cut paddy in the said field when they reached near the house of Paulus Munda then Samuel Munda, Monsokh Munda, Paulus Munda and Lother Munda came silently with lathi and bow-arrow and assaulted upon them. Samuel Munda assulted Silvestor Munda with Lathi, Paulus Munda assaulted Noyel Munda with arrow on his chest causing injuries to him, Rafel Chtrwa also sustained arrow injury on his left thigh causing injuries to him, then they snatches the bow-arrow and lathi from the hands of the accused persons. Lothar Munda also gave a Tangi blow on the head of the informant, which he saved from his hand and was not hurt. Lothar Munda also gave Tangi below to Mojesh Munda causing injuries on his head. The accused persons wanted to resist them to cut paddy from the said field and for this reason the aforesaid occurrence was committed with them with intent to kill them.
On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case against the said accused persons under the aforesaid Sections. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned 2nd, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Chaibasa, who found the appellants guilty under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforesaid.
It is important to note that in the course of trial Samuel Munda and Lother Munda died and their names were deleted from the charge-sheet vide order dated 06.07.1998 and 23.07.1998 respectively.
It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses.
PW.1, Marshel Munda
P.W.2, Bilkan Munda, the informant of the case.
P.W.3, Mojesh Munda
P.W.4, Rufail Munda
P.W.5, Junul Munda
P.W.6, Noyel Topno
P.W.7, Pintu Munda
P.W.8, Niranjan Munda
P.W.9, Andriyes Munda
P.W.10, Dr. Mishra.
The defence has also examined as many as two witnesses.
D.W. 1, Mangra Munda
D.W. 2, Julias Munda.
P.W. 2, Bilkan Munda, the informant of the case, has supported the prosecution case and stated in fardbeyan that on the date of occurrence on 13.11.91 at 10.00 A.M. he along with Niranjan Munda, Aliya, Habil Munda, Junul Munda, Gowarial Munda, Noyal Munda, Mojesh Munda and Rafile Chtrwa alongwith some other villagers were going to cut paddy in his filed when they reached near the house of Paulus Munda then Samuel Munda, Monsokh Munda, Paulus Munda and Lother Munda came silently with lathi and bow-arrow and assaulted them. On the point of assault, he has stated that Lothar Munda assaulted him with a Tangi on his right hand, Samuel assaulted Mojesh with a Lathi, paulus assaulted Noyel and Rafel with arrow. He has also stated that as they were going to cut paddy in the said field, so they were assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, he went to the Anandpur Police Station and recorded his statement before the A.S.I. In his cross-examination he stated that there was a land dispute and the case is going with the accused persons.
P.W. 3, Mojesh Munda, stated that on 13.11.1991 he was going with the informant, Bilkan Munda and others for cutting paddy when they reached near the house of accused Samuel Munda then Raulush assaulted Noyel with arrow and Paulush assaulted this witness with Tangi.
P.W.4, Rufail Munda has also stated that on the date of occurrence on 13.11.1991 he was going with the informant, Bilkan Munda and others for cutting paddy when they reached near the house of accused Samuel Munda then he has been assaulted by Mansukh Munda from arrow.
PW.6, Noyel Topno, has also stated that on the date of occurrence on 13.11.1991 he was going with the informant, Bilkan Munda and others for cutting paddy when they reached near the house of accused Samuel Munda then he has been assaulted by Paulush from arrow which his him on his chest, he showed his chest wound in the Court.
From the evidence of the informant and also injured witnesses P.W.s 3 and 4, it is clear that some fight took place on the date of occurrence on 13.11.1991 at 10.00 A.M. when informant along with others were going to cut paddy crops and there was a land dispute between the parties and defence witnesses were examined, D.W. 1 Mangra Munda stated that the land belongs to Paulus Munda and it is ancestral land of both the parties and both of them are claiming for land and no fight took place on the date of occurrence. The same statement has given by P.W. 2. It is apparent that there was a land dispute and some fights took place on the date of occurrence and it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant there was a counter case. In that view of the matter, P.W.s 2, 3, 4 and 6 and also evidence from P.W.s 7, 8 and 9 show that there was fighting between the parties although witnesses P.W.s 4 and 6 stated that about the injury received specifically to Niranjan Munda. P.W.6 also received injury on his chest.
In that view of the matter it is difficult to come to a finding that the appellants caused injury by some weapons or he himself was injured while fighting. As such the conviction of the two appellants u/s 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained and in absence of the evidence of doctor, I.O. and injury report conviction u/s 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. They are only found guilty u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that both the appellants have remained in custody for about 88 days during the trial. It appears from the joint compromise petition filed by both the parties on 15.02.1992, certified copy which has been filed in this case. It also appears that after conviction by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2002, the appellants were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2002 and hence again they remained in custody for more than three months. Since before the judgment due to misuse of bail, the appellants were arrested on 30.01.2002 and remained in custody till 03.04.2002. As such the sentences undergone by the appellants of six months is sufficient sentence, undergone during the trial and appeal since 1991. Hence, no further sentences are required u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Since, the appellants are on bail, they are released from the bondage of their bail.