Pranita Keot And Ors vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. BK Bhagabati, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State/respondent No.1.

Present revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 18/07 whereby the learned appellate court has allowed the appeal acquitting the accused-persons/private respondents from the charge u/s 447/325/34 IPC.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 1.5.2000, the informant/Pranati Keot lodged an FIR before the O/c of Dobak Police Out-post against the accused persons alleging interalia that on the same day at about 8:00 AM while her father and her elder brother were ploughing in their own land, the accused persons armed with dao, lathi, hulabari, spade etc. trespassed into their land and assaulted her father and brother as a result of which they sustained injuries on their persons and injured were taken to the hospital for providing treatment. Accordingly, Rangia PS Case No.102/2000 u/s 447/325/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons and on completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-persons under the above Sections of law.

In course of trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the I/O of the case. The injured persons and the Medical Officer were not cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet, so they were examined as Court Witness by the court. Plea of defence was of total denial and they also adduced evidence in support of their pleas.

At the conclusion of trial, learned trial court has found and held the accused persons guilty u/s 447/325/34 IPC and sentenced them for simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence u/s 447/34 IPC and SI for 3 months each for the offence u/s 325/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default SI for another one month with further direction that 75% of the total fine amount be paid to the victim/injured persons.

On appeal, preferred by the accused persons, the learned appellate court vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2008 acquitted all the accused persons on benefit of doubt on the ground that there was no corroboration of the evidence of the injured persons by any independent eye-witness nor the prosecution exhibited any sketch map of the occurrence and also considering the long pending land dispute between the parties. Learned appellate court was also of the view that it was not safe to place reliance upon the CW.1 & CW.2 (two injured persons). On the other hand, it was observed that evidence of PW.2 is not supporting the prosecution case in toto.

Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid appellate court's judgment, present petition has been preferred.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the private respondents and the learned Addl. PP.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned appellate court is erred in law in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective of law and facts. It is contended that there happened to be eye-witness to the occurrence and the learned trial court has convicted the accused persons after adequately appreciating the evidence of injured persons, which is also corroborated by the Medical Officer and the I/O of the case to some extent. But, the learned appellate court has misconstrued the evidences. It is also contended that although PW.2 has not stated in detail about the occurrence but he had found the injured Ramesh Keot in injured condition at the place of occurrence and that he informed the matter to the said family, only for the said reason, entire prosecution cannot be discarded and benefit of doubt cannot be given in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it has been submitted that in view of the evidence of injured witnesses supported by PW.1/informant and the Medical Officer (PW.5) also considering the defence plea and evidence about the admissibility of the occurrence, there can be no escape from the fact that injured sustained serious injuries in the said incident. But the learned appellate court has not appreciated the entire evidence having regard to the plea of the defence as well.

Learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. Choudhury has, however, contended that there being no eye-witness to the occurrence to the effect that accused persons inflicted such injuries to the injured persons coupled with the fact of land dispute between the parties for since long and it cannot be claimed that charge can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been urged that even though the defence admitted the story of incident and the occurrence but it is not at all proved that the injury was inflicted by the accused persons. That apart, it has been contended that there is no X-ray report etc. to conclude that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature and the injured might have exaggerated the case in their evidence.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the private respondents as well as the learned Additional PP and also considered the entire evidence on record.

Obviously in the present case, the PW.2 has not stated anything about the occurrence but he has not totally denied the occurrence. Even though there are some inconsistencies in the statement of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard that how the informant came to know about the incident but even then we have the evidence of other two vital witnesses i.e. the injured persons, who were examined as CW.1 and CW.2. Both of them in their evidence have stated that on the fateful day while CW.1 was ploughing in the paddy field and CW.2 was assisting him, the accused persons entered into their land claiming the land to be their own land and started altercation. It is the evidence of the injured persons that accused persons threatened them from ploughing in the said land and one of the accused persons namely, Madhab inflicted blow upon Ramesh Keot (CW.1) over his head and hands with iron rod and other injured (CW.2) when tried to resist them, he was also assaulted by other accused persons, as a result of which he also sustained injuries. According to the informant/PW.1 while she went to offer tea to his father and elder brother (CW.1 and CW.2), she saw the occurrence and raised hullah and she took both the injured persons to the hospital for providing treatment.

The Medical Officer, who examined the injured Ramesh Keot has given his evidence that he found - i) cut injury on scalp size 4 cm X 1 cm; ii) cut injury on right arm size 3 cm X 1 cm and iii) cut injury or right dorsom of hand 3 cm X 1 cm, and according to him the injuries are grievous in nature caused by blunt object. Ext.2 is the injury report, but in the said report he has not annexed any X-ray in support of the contention that the injury was grievous.

So, it can be held that the evidence of injured persons has been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer that on the fateful day one of the victim i.e. Ramesh Keot sustained injuries on his person.

However, in absence of any such X-ray report, the injury can at least be presumed as simple cut injury which will attract the provisions of Section 324 of IPC.

PW.4 & PW.6 are the I/O of the case and they also supported the prosecution case that the victim was taken to the police station and thereafter police sent them for medical examination. From their evidence, it can be held that the injured sustained injuries on their persons on the fateful day and there was no any effective cross-examination to the effect that no such injuries sustained, on their part.

So far as the plea of defence is concerned, as it appears from the cross-examination that on the fateful day as the injured persons Ramesh Keot and his son were ploughing in their land, they resisted them and there was an altercation between them and they finally ousted those persons from the disputed land and in the process there was some altercation between them and they do not know who sustained injury on the said incident. In their evidence, adduced by the defence side, they have admitted the incident on the fateful day stating that because of ploughing on the disputed land there was hot altercation between the parties. DW.2/one of the accused person in his evidence has also stated the same fact that on the fateful day, as and when they went to the disputed land to plough, they found Ramesh Keot was ploughing on the disputed land and when they debarred them from doing so by releasing the plough, it is his evidence, that CW.1 and CW.2 attacked them at a time and they have entered into the altercation/scuffle with them to protect their person and property and ultimately they could ousted the injured persons from their land.

Evidence of PW.1 also reflects that there was some altercation/dispute between the parties on the fateful day but he has not disclosed the occurrence. In the plea of defence as well as in their evidence, the defence admitted the occurrence and never denied such incident and the place of occurrence but they specifically not admitted that they caused injury to the injured persons. The defence has not seriously challenged the injury so sustained by the injured persons. However, it is an admitted position that injured sustained some injuries in the said incident.

In the given backdrop of the case, it is immaterial to discuss about the disputed land but the fact remains that there was an incident of assault on a property dispute between the parties. The enmity is totally double edged weapon for which one can raise the accusations against another while the other raised the weapon to shield him. In the present case, it can be interfered that because of serious land dispute, incident of assault was happened and as has been discussed above, it can be held that the two injured persons were attacked and assaulted by the accused persons for such land dispute.

Learned appellate court has not deliberate on the other issues, as discussed above, regarding plea of the accused/their evidence and has extended the benefit of doubt considering the circumstances while the defence itself failed to explain about the injury sustained by the injured persons. It reflects that the learned appellate court did not apply his judicial mind in the entire episode to the prosecution case and has concluded with some surmises which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Being a revisional Court, it can be held that the learned appellate court has crept into serious irregularity while appreciating the evidence and other facts, as has been discussed above, which calls for interference to the impugned judgment so passed by the learned appellate court and accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set aside.

The prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 324/34 IPC against all the accused persons and accordingly, they are found guilty of an offence under Section 324/34 IPC and there being a serious dispute as regards a disputed land, the offence under Section 447 /34 IPC cannot be established. This Court also take note of the fact that the incident is of year 2000 and by this time one of the victim, namely, Ramesh Keot has also been died being an old aged person but the other victim, namely, Debadutta Keot is still alive. In such backdrop, severe punishment after a lapse of 19 years of occurrence is not justified.

Resultantly, all accused persons are convicted under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to pay only fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, the amount of fine be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of 1(one) month from today and the amount so deposited be awarded to the surviving injured Sri Debadutta Keot as compensation.

The revision petition stands disposed of.

Return the LCR forthwith along with a copy of the judgment.