AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State.
The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.188 of 2016, arising out of Hatgamharia P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 (G.R. No.52 of 2016), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 325/34 & 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341/34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 504 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The prosecution story, in short, as per the fardbayan of the informant namely, Brajmohan Chatomba, recorded by the A.S.I. Md. Fakhruddin of Hatgamharia Police Station on 13.02.2016 at 01:00 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, is that on 11.02.20126 (Thursday) at about 04 O'clock in the evening, he was sitting in the house of one Hurdub Koda of village Amdiha after sawing wood in his house. In the meantime, Mora Chatomba, Chandro Chatomba, Chumbru Chatomba, Jhingi Kui and Motura Birua came there by forming an unlawful assembly and abused the informant. The said miscreants told the informant to come with them to Munda by saying that his decision will be taken there. When the informant tried to know from them as to why they are taking him, they told that one year ago, the wife of Amro Chatomba was murdered in which you had called the police and sent us to jail. By saying so, the above named accused persons abused and assaulted the informant with fist and blow with an intention to kill him due to which the informant became unconscious. Thereafter, the informant was brought to the hospital for treatment where he regained his consciousness on 13.02.2016 and it was disclosed by his wife that the Chaibasa Police had brought him to the hospital and got admitted there. It was claimed that the said miscreants have assaulted the informant with an intention to kill him.
On the basis of said fardbayan of the informant, the F.I.R being Hatgamharia P.S. Case No. 04/2016 dated 13.02.2016 was registered against altogether 05 accused persons namely, Mora Chatomba, Chandro Chatomba, Chumbru Chatomba, Jhingi Kui and Motura Birua, under sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet on 27.06.2026 against the 03 accused persons namely, Chumbru Chatomba, Motura Birua and Chandro Chatomba, under sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the investigation continued against the accused persons Mora Chatomba and Jhingi Kui. The charge has been framed on 06.12.2018 under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 504/34, 307, 120B/34 IPC against the appellants. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.
To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses. Only relevant witnesses are P.Ws.-1 & 2 and rest of the witnesses have either declared hostile or have not supported the prosecution story. However their depositions, in short, are as follows:-
P.W.-1, Barjo Chatomba@ Braj Mohan Chatomba,
is the informant of this case. He has clearly stated the name of four persons including the present appellants regarding the indiscriminate assault made, but this fact does not get corroboration from the medical report. He has stated regarding the presence of several independent witnesses, but none of the independent witnesses have supported the incident. Further, he has not stated regarding the presence of P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence.
P.W.-2, Mungali Chatomba, is the wife of the informant and she claimed herself to be present at the place of occurrence and as an eye witness also. She has admitted that the accused are the family members.
P.W.-3, Sri Uday Chatomba, is the son of the informant and a hearsay witness.
P.W.-4, Sri Rashika Koda, is also a hearsay witness.
P.W.-5, Dr. Sanjay Kujur, is the doctor, who has proved the injury report and he has not found any external injury on the person of the informant, as has been disclosed in the prosecution story.
P.W.-6, Budhni Koda, has been declared hostile.
P.W.-7, Savitri Koda, has also been declared hostile.
P.W.-8, Md. Fakruddin, is the investigating officer of the case and he has stated that he has taken the statements of the witnesses of nearby village, who were the eye witnesses, but they have been declared hostile.
On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 325/34 & 504/34 IPC and sentenced them, as stated above.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :-
the only material available against the appellants are the evidence of the P.Ws.-1 & 2.
P.W.-1 has not stated regarding the presence of P.W.-2, rather P.W.-1 was performing his duty in the house of another person and that person has not been examined.
the prosecution story, regarding the indiscriminate assault, does not get corroboration by the medical evidence. The injury may be caused due to fall upon the hard and blunt surface.
Thus, the material available on the record is not sufficient, justifying the conviction of the appellants under Sections 341, 325/34 & 504/34 IPC.
In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.188 of 2016, arising out of Hatgamharia P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 (G.R. No.52 of 2016), is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.
The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond.
Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR