JUDGMENT
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants named above against the judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 402/88/31/95 by Sri RC. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas whereby and whereunder appellant No. 1, Sarjug Sharma has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to under go R.I. for 8 years and 1 year respectively and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were found guilty for offence punishable under Section 147 and 323, IPC and they were each convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and two months respectively and appellant No, 5, Biren Sharma has been found guilty for the offence under Section 147, IPC only and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. However, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were not found guilty for the offence under Section 323, IPC.
2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyon of PW 1, Ratan Lal Sharma recorded by S.I. Ram Bahadur Mahato of Chas Muffasil P.S. on 2.6.1988 at 9.00 a.m. in Referal Hospital, Chas regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 7.30 hours in Village Chikisia, P.S., Chas (Mufassil), District Dhanbad (now Bokaro).
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma, father of the informant, was digging the foundation for constructing a house and his mother PW 6, Panu Bala Devi was returning from the pond at that time and all the appellants stopped her in the way and abused the mother of the informant and told her as to why Ram Kisun Sharma is digging the land and as to whether he has to die and at this the mother of the informant told them to let her go to her house. It is alleged that thereafter all the appellants armed with lathi and farsa came to the ‘Barf of the informant and started abusing his father. It is alleged that the informant along with his brother Thakur Lal Sharma (PW 2) came there from the side of the pond aforesaid on hearing the abuses and they alongwith his father protested to the appellants in respect thereof and at this appellant Sarjug Sharma gave a farsa blow on the left scapular region of his father and other appellants also assaulted him by lathi. The prosecution case further is that they have also assaulted the informant, his brother and his mother by lathi when they attempted to rescue Ram Kisun Sharma. The prosecution case further is that Ram Kisun Sharma fell down and became unconscious and on alarms persons of the vicinity of the place of occurrence, namely. Tulsi Sharma, Hakim Gorain, Mahadeo Sharma and others came there and they witnessed the occurrence.
4. The appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claimed themselves to be Innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute which is existing and alive between the parties.
5. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record the learned Court below has found the appellants guilty and has convicted and sentenced them as stated above.
6. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants. PW 1, Ratan Lal Sharma, is the informant of this case, PW 2, Thakur Lal Sharma, PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma and PW 6, Panu Bala Sharma are the brother, father and mother respectively of the informant, and they have sustained injuries in the occurrence in question besides the informant. PW 8, Sumati Devi, the alleged eye witness of the occurrence, is the wife of the informant. PW 4, Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha has examined the injuries appearing on the persons of PWs 3, 1, 2 and 6 and the injuries reports in respect thereof granted by him are Ext. 1 series. PW 7, Ram Bahadur Mahato is the I.O. of this case and he has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) and the formal FIR (Ext. 3) of this case. He has also proved the requisition for the examination of the aforesaid injured persons by the medical witness and these requisitions are Ext. 4 series. PW 5, Mahadeo Sharma an agnate of the parties to the case has turned hostile and does not support the prosecution case. One Prasad Singh Choudhary resident of Village Adamdih said to be the relative of appellant Prahlad Sharma, has taken oath in this case as DW 1 and has proved the sale-deed (Ext. B) dated 17.1.1984 executed by Harsh Lal Sharma, son of Panchanan Mahati in favour of Jhalu Bala Devi, W/O Sambhu Nath Sharma, the father of appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 which is in respect of plot No. 961 besides several other plots of the share of the executant Harsh Lal Sharma, Ext. A is the khatiyan of khata No. 28, plot No. 961 standing in the name of Panchanan Mahati and Divakar Mahati who are the ancestors of the appellants as well as of the informant respectively.’
7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of the learned Court below it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that ‘Barf in question appertaining to plot No. 961 of khata No. 28 stands jointly recorded in the name of the ancestors of the parties to this case and the said plot is still joint and it is a common land of the parties and said land is used as the passage for the egress and ingress of the appellants and there is a land dispute between the parties in respect thereof and PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma was attempting to usurp the land aforesaid and no occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place and a false case has been set up by the informant to put pressure on the appellants so that they may leave their claim over the same and the learned Court below did not consider this aspect of the matter and has wrongly come to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellants. It has also been submitted that there is inherent inconsistencies and material contradictions in the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 which cast a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the manner of the occurrence of the prosecution case. It has further been submitted that PWs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 highly interested and partisan witnesses as they are inter se related and their testimony is fit to be brushed aside in view of the absence of testimony of any independent, natural and competent witness of the vicinity of the place of occurrence when in fact as per averment made in the fardbeyan of the informant four persons of the vicinity had come to the place of the occurrence during the commission of the alleged occurrence. It has also been contended for the appellants that the parties to the case are agnates and plot No. 961 stands jointly recorded in the name of Panchanan Mahati, ancestors of the appellants and Divakar Mahati the ancestor of the informant and not only this Harsh Lal Sharma one of the sons of Panchanan Mahati has executed the sale deed (Ext. B) in respect of his share in plot No. 961 besides several other plots in favour of Jhalu Bala Devi, W/O Shambhu Nath Sharma, the father of all the appellants except appellant Biren Sharma. Lastly it has been submitted that the
testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6, who are highly partisan and interested witnesses, does not at all stand corroborated by any legal evidence of natural, competent and reliable witness of the vicinity of the place of occurrence and the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and has erred in finding the appellants guilty.
8. The learned APP has submitted that the appellants have assaulted not only PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma by farsa but also PWs 1, 2 and 6 in the occurrence in question and PW 4, the medical witness, has corroborated the existence of injuries on their person and the objective finding of the I.O. also establishes the prosecution case. It has also been submitted that there is no illegality or any irregularity in the impugned judgment and order in view of the legal and reliable evidence on the record.
9. It will admit of no doubt that the occurrence has taken place on 2.6.1988 at 7.30 a.m. in Village Chikisia, P.S. Chas (Muffasil), District Dhanbad (now Bokaro) in which PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 have sustained injuries on their person and they have been examined by PW 4, Sharda Prasad Sinha soon thereafter i.e. at 9.00 O’clock in the morning in the Sub divisional hospital, Chas. PW 4 has deposed to have found the following injuries on the person of PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma :–
“A big semi circular sharp incised wound on the left side of scapular region extending just from lateral border of vertebral column, anteriorly up to left side mid Axilla-point, cutting all the muscles of Infrasplnatus & Supra spinatus group of muscles on the posterior aspect of left scapula and also the spine of left scapula with profuse bleeding and the mouth filled with blood-clots. One abrasion 1/2″ x 1/4″ with diffuse swellings mid-skull”. The medical witness has deposed further that injury on the left scapular region is grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting instrument may be by farsa and the other injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance i.e., by lathi.
10. The medical witness has also deposed to have examined PW 6, Panu Bala Devi at 10.10 a.m. in the Sub-divisional Hospital, Chas and has found the following injuries on her person :–
(i) Diffused swelling with tenderness right side forehead;
(ii) Diffused swellings with vertical abrasions 1/2″ x 1/6″ left side forehead;
(iii) Lacerated wound 3/4″ x 1/6″ x 1/6″ left elbow; and
(iv) Diffused swelling with tenderness on left forearm.
The medical witness has also deposed that the injuries on the person of Panu Bala Devi are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance like ‘lathi’.
11. PW 4, the medical witness has further deposed to have examined Ratan Lal Sharma, PW 1 at 10.40 a.m. and has found diffused swelling with tenderness on right upper arm and another diffused swelling with tenderness and abrasion on his right leg and both the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The medical witness has also further deposed to have found three irregular abrasions with diffused swellings on the left lower chest left upper side back and right thigh respectively on the person of PW 2, Thakur Lal Sharma and all these injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The medical witness has very specifically deposed the injuries on the persons of the aforesaid PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 are within six hours of their examination. The age of the injury, there-fare, corroborates the time of the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. Ext. 1 series, i.e., the injury reports corroborate the testimony of PW 4, the medical witness, regarding the existence of injuries on the persons of PWs 3, 6, 1 and 2, PW 7, the I.O. has deposed that he has issued the requisition for examination of the injuries appearing on the person of PWs 3, 6, 1 and 2 and these requisitions are Ext. 4 series. PW 7 has also deposed that he has found at the place of occurrence a fresh dug earth to the extent of 28 steps west north to south and a rope was also found at the place of occurrence in straight line the objective finding of the I.O. substantiate the prosecution case regarding the occurrence having taken place at the place as alleged by the prosecution.
12. There is no denying the fact that Panchanan Mahati and Divakar Mahatt are full brothers. The appellants are the descendants of the Panchanan Mahati aforesaid and the informant and other injured persons of this case are the descendants of Divakar Mahati and they are agnates and also co-sharers in respect of plot No. 961 of Khata No. 28 having an area of 18 decimals. Ext. A is the certified copy of khatiyan which corroborates this fact. PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma has deposed in Para 2 of his evidence that he was digging the foundation in the land of his share. In Para 6 of his cross-examination he has deposed that the said land bears plot No. 961 of Khata No. 28. He has also deposed that he cannot say the number of other plots besides plot No. 961 aforesaid which had been allotted to his share. It, therefore, appears from the evidence of PW 3 that plot No. 961 which is the place of the occurrence of this case is the exclusive property of PW 3, the father of informant, allotted to him exclusively in his share as well as in his exclusive possession. PW 1, the informant, has denied the fact that plot No. 961 is the joint or common land of the parties. PW 2 has deposed that the P.O., land is never the joint family properties of the parties and there has been mutual partition of the land between the parties. PW 2 has also deposed that the prosecution had never put any claim over the P.O., land earlier. For this evidence of PW 2 as appear in Paras 9, 10 and 11 is referred to. PW 6 has deposed in Para 11 of her testimony that P.O., land belongs to her and parties to this case had their separate residence and courtyards which they have got in mutual partition. Ext. B the sale-deed dated 17.1.1984 executed by one co-sharer in favour of the wife of the other co-sharer in respect of plot No. 961 gives an inkling of the fact that plot No. 961 is never Joint between the parties and a common land used for the purposes of passage. It, therefore, appears from the evidence on record that the P.O. land was in exclusive possession of the informant on the date of the occurrence.
13. According to the prosecution case PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma was digging the land in plot No. 961 for giving foundation. The objective finding of the I.O., is that he has found 28 steps of the land in plot No. 961 dug when he has inspected the place of occurrence. PW 7 the I.O. has deposed that the place of occurrence is ‘Barf land of the informant and there is a brick built house of the informant facing south to the south of the said ‘Barf land and there is a ‘Kirana shop’ and post office in the said house. There is a lane adjacent to the said shop which goes from east to south and again from north to south and the said ‘Barf land is adjacent west to the said land surrounded by bushes. The houses of the appellants are east and north of the said lane. It, therefore appears from the topographic of the place of occurrence as stated by the I.O. that there was no cause of any obstruction to the egress and ingress of the appellant from their houses to the lane aforesaid. It further appears from the evidence on the record that PW 3 was digging the land of plot No. 961 for giving foundation as of his rights. PW 1, the informant has deposed that PW 3 was digging for laying foundation in his ‘Bart’ land and his mother PW 6 was coming from the pond and the appellants abused his mother in the way and told that PW 3 has to die for digging the foundation. The informant has also deposed that he alongwith his younger brother Thakur Lal Sharma, PW 2 came there and in the mean time all the appellants went to, the place where the foundation was being dug and they abused his father PW 3. The evidence of PW 1 is further to the effect that appellant Sarjug Sharma gave a farsa blow on the left scapular region of his father PW 3 and appellant Biren Sharma gave a lathi blow on his head and his father PW 3 fell down and became unconscious. PW 1 has also deposed that thereafter Sarjug Sharma and Biren Sharma fled away from there and the remaining three appellants assaulted him, his mother and his younger brother by lathi PW 1 has, however, deposed that appellant Prahlad Sharma was armed with tangi which is not in conformity with the prosecution case. PW 2, Thakur Lal Sharma in Para 2, PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma in Para 2 and 3, PW 6, Panu Bala Sharma in Para 4 and 5 and PW 8 in Para 1 of their testimony have specifically deposed that appellant Sarjug Sharma assaulted PW 3, Ram Kisun Sharma by farsa causing injuries on his left scapular region and
appellant Biren Sharma gave a lathi blow on his head and the other appellants have assaulted PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6. The medical evidence corroborates the manner of occurrence regarding the assault on PWs 3, 1, 2 and 6 in the manner as alleged in the fardbeyan. It is true that there is some minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 viz a viz the other occular witnesses of the occurrence in question regarding appellant Prahlad having armed with Tangi but this contradiction is not of such a magnitude to cast a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding the manner of occurrence. The defence version of false implication of the appellant in this case does not at all appear natural and probable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true that all the witnesses who have testified in this case for the prosecution are inter se related but their testimony is not fit to be discarded on this score alone in view of the fact that they are the most natural and competent witnesses of the occurrence and they have sustained injuries on their person in the occurrence in question. Further more, these witnesses have no reason to depose falsely implicating the appellants in this case. The nature of the injuries appearing on the left scapular region on the person of PW 3 which is grievous in nature cannot be manufactured in the facts and circumstances of this case so as to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. And last but not the least the four witnesses have been cited in the fardbeyan as occular witnesses of the occurrence but three of them have not been named in the charge-sheet and PW 5 has turned hostile for the reasons best known to him and this aspect of the matter is not a circumstance to throw the prosecution case. The evidence on the record establishes the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Court below has properly considered and scrutinized the evidence on the record in right perspective and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and has also rightly convicted and sentenced them. It is equally relevant to mention here that the sentences awarded to the appellants are also not excessive so as- to require any modification therein. There is legal evidence on the record to substantiate the prosecution case. I see no illegality or any irregularity in the impugned judgment and order requiring an interference therein.
14. There is no merit in the appeal and it fails. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Court below is hereby confirmed. This appeal is hereby dismissed.