Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.37 of 2002
---
Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.1.2002 and order of sentence
dated 18.1.2002 passed by Shri Mishri Lal Choudhary, Sessions Judge,
Latehar in Sessions Trial No.234 of 1991.
------------
1. Deolal Uraon
2. Ramdeo Uraon
3. Ramlal Uraon
4. Phulchand Uraon
5. Dhannulal Uraon
6. Mangal Uraon
7. Maheshwar Uraon
8. Rawana Uraon
9. Sukhdeo Uraon
10.Rameshwar Uraon -------Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ------- Respondent.
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Satish Kr. Ughal, Advocate
Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, Advocate
Mr. Kiran Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
-------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
----
By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 16.1.2002 and order of sentence dated
18.1.2002 passed by Shri Mishri Lal Choudhary, Sessions
Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No.234 of 1991 against the
appellants, out of whom appellant no. 2 to 8 and 10 were found
guilty U/S 307/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 4 years. They were also found guilty u/s 147 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Appellant no. 2 and
9 were found guilty u/s 307/149 and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 4 years and further they were found guilty u/s 148 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2
2. The prosecution case was started on the F.I.R. given by
the informant (P.W.9), Bara Sibu Uraon is that on 21.10.1990 at
about 10.00 a.m. at village Sisi, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar
when they were cutting paddy in their field, all the accused
persons came variously armed with lathi, tangi etc. and
assaulted them causing injury to the informant and witnesses.
The informant brought the injured persons to the police station
where the F.I.R. was recorded. He has stated that the land
belonged to them and they were growing crops in the land since
long and when they were cutting the crops, the occurrence took
place. He has stated that land dispute is going on between both
the parties and case is pending. On the basis of the said F.I.R.,
police registered Latehar P.S. case no.111/1990 and after
investigation submitted chargesheet u/s 147, 148, 149, 447,
323,324,325,307 of the I.P.C against the accused persons.
Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
therefore learned A.C.J.M. took cognizance of the case and
committed the case to the court of Sessions. Finally the case
was tried before the Sessions Judge, Latehar who after trial
found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as
aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of
the case since it will appear from the counter case, F.I.R.
,Ext.’F’ proved by the defence that one of the member of the
accused party namely Bartu Oraon died in the occurrence and
injuries were caused to other members of the accused parties.
But the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries. He has
relied upon a decision reported in “A.I.R. 1976 SC page 2263”
stating therein that non explanation of the injuries on the
accused persons has made the prosecution case doubtful. He has
further submitted that by filing documents with regard to the
land, the appellant have proved that the land belong to them and
the informant party were cutting the paddy, which was not even
3
ripe, by force. Hence the conviction and sentence is bad and fit
to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state has
submitted that all the witnesses are injured and natural
witnesses. The prosecution has proved by the evidence of
Doctor, P.W.8 that eight persons were injured in the
prosecution side. Their injury report is ext.1 to 1/7. He has
further submitted that all the witnesses are natural witnesses
and they have admitted that they are the accused in the counter
case also and they also admitted that in the fight between both
the parties, one of the accused member namely Bartu Uraon
died due to the assault of the accused party. Thus, the
prosecution has explained the death of Bartu Oraon and hence
the conviction and sentence against the accused persons is well
founded and requires no interference of this court.
5. After hearing both the parties, I find that the prosecution
has altogether examined twelve witnesses, out of whom except
P.W.8 and P.W.12, all the witnesses are injured as well as
accused in the counter case. P.W.1, Dhaneshwar Oraon has
stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10.a.m. in the
morning when he was cutting paddy in the field along with
Bara Sibu Oraon, Jageshwar Oraon, Birju Oraon, Mahraj
Oraon, Basu oraon, Lalji Oraon, Laldhari Oraon then the
accused persons namely Bara Kaila Uraon, Rameshwar Oraon,
Mangal Oraon, Rouna Oraon, Sukhdeo Oraon, Dhanulal Oraon,
Surendra Oraon, Mahendra Oraon, Basudeon Oraon, Patia
Oraon etc., all came variously armed with lathi, tangi and farsa
and started assaulting them. Due to their assault, Gangeswar
Uoaon, Jageshwar Oraon,Braj Oraon, Mahraj Oraon, Lalji
Oraon, Basu Oraon, and Kaleshwar Oraon received injuries
along with him. In cross examination at para 5 he denied that
due to their assault Bartu Oraon died. He admitted that other
persons were also injured. P.W.2, Birju Oraon has stated that
time of occurrence is about 9 a.m. when they were cutting crop
in their field, then all the accused persons variously armed with
4
lathi, tangi etc. came there and assaulted them causing injury to
Gangeshwar Oraon, Jageshwar Oraon, Maharaj Oraon etc. He
also received injuries on his hand. In para 7 of his cross
examination, he has admitted that Bartu Oraon had came to stop
them from cutting the crop and in the marpeet he died. He also
admitted that the accused persons received injuries, but he
cannot say as to who was injured. He also become unconscious
by the injuries. P.W.3 Basudeo Oraon has also alleged the
same thing that the accused persons came variously armed with
lathi, tangi etc. when they were cutting the crops and gave
injury to him and others. In para 3 he has stated that when the
accused started assaulting , then Maharaj Oraon , Jagmohan
Oraon received injuries and fell down and when Bartu Oraon
went to save Maharaj and Jagmohan he was assaulted by the
accused persons and he died. P.W.4, Gangeshwar Oraon also
stated that the accused persons came variously armed with lathi,
tangi and assaulted them when they were cutting paddy in their
own land. In cross examination in para 8,9 and 10 he has stated
that ‘marpeet’ was being done from both side and thus, who
came with Bartu Oraon also received injury. P.W.5, Bika Oraon
has only stated that Bartu Oraon died in field. P.W.6, Jagmohan
Oraon has supported the prosecution case and stated that
accused persons came and started assaulting them when they
were cutting crops in their field. He admitted that he is the
accused in the counter case. In para 6 he also stated that Bartu
Oraon came and asked them not to cut the crops and there after
they started assaulting them. He cannot say as to how Bartu
Oraon received injuries. In the side of Bartu, Mangla Oraon ,
Pandu Oraon and Ramu Oraon received injuries. He cannot
remember the name of the other injured from the side of the
accused. P.W.7, Maharaj Oraon has also stated that the accused
persons came variously armed with lathi and tangi and started
assaulting them when they were cutting crops in their land. He
has also stated in para 5 that Bartu died in the occurrence and
he is the accused in the counter case. In para 6 of his cross
5
examination, he has stated that as they started cutting crops.
‘Marpeet’ started from both side. P.W.8, Dr.Sidhnath has
proved the injury of the seven witnesses as ext.1 to 1/7. P.W.9,
Bara Sibu Oraon, informant of this case has supported the
prosecution case as given by him in the F.I.R. and stated that he
along with witnesses were cutting crops when al the accused
persons came variously armed with lathi , tangi, pharsa etc. and
started assaulting them. He received injury by lathi. Other
witnesses also received injury. He took all the injured to the
police station where statement were recorded. He identified his
L.T.I. and stated that from there all the injured were taken to
the Hospital. He also admitted in cross examination in para
9,10 and 11 that Bartu Oraon in course of ‘marpeet’ died on the
field itself, but he canot say as to how injury was caused to
Bartu. P.W.10, Phulo Devi and P.W.11,Sugni Oraon have also
stated that they were present at the place of occurrence and
they also received injury on the head. They also admitted that
their husbands are accused in the counter case. They also
admitted that Bartu died in course of the occurrence. P.W.12,
Mujibul khan is a formal witness who has proved the formal
F.I.R.
6. Thus, from the prosecution witnesses it is clear that while
the informant party were cutting the crops in the field, all the
accused persons came variously armed with lathi, tangi , farsa
etc. and started assaulting them. The defence has examined two
witnesses and proved the F.I.R. of the counter case marked as
ext.F. From perusal of the ext.F, it appears that informant of
the counter case which is Latehar P.S. case no.
10/1990,Rameshwar Oraon has stated that on the date of
occurrence in the morning he found Gangeshwar Oraon with
20/25 persons were cutting paddy in his field. Where upon his
brother came and asked him to go to the field. He along with
Barthu Oraon, Kameshwar Oraon, Ramlal Oraon, Devlal Oran ,
Mangla Oraon and others went to the field and found all the
accused persons cutting crops and when they stopped , then it is
6
alleged that the accused started assaulting him with lathi, tangi ,
farsa etc. In the F.I.R. prosecution also admitted that the
prosecution party of the present case were cutting crops in the
field and it is the accused persons who came there along with
15/20 persona and stopped them from cutting crop and there
after it appears that the fight took place from both the side. All
the prosecution witnesses have admitted in the assault, accused
persons were also injured and one of them, Bartu Oraon died on
the spot. So it is not the case that the prosecution has not
explained the injuries on other side. Both the F.I.R. shows tht
the accused persons are the party who came and stopped the
cutting of the crops where after the fight took place. It is
immaterial whether the land was in the possession of the
prosecution party or the accused. In that view of the matter, the
case of the defence that injuries on the person of accused
persons have not been explained and hence the prosecution
case is doubtful is not tenable as far as this case is concerned.
All the witnesses are injured persons and accused in the counter
case have admitted that injuries were caused on both sides.
7. In that view of the matter, the learned court below has
rightly found the accused persons guilty and convicted and
sentenced them as aforesaid.
9. Hence, I find no merit in this appeal and this appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
[Pradeep Kumar, J]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 16th April, 2009
A.K.M./NAFR