Ganauri Prajapati vs State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar, J

I.A. No.10526 of 2024

The present interlocutory application has been filed for bringing on record that Appellant No.1 namely Ganauri Prajapati is no more.

The State has filed counter affidavit bringing on record the death certificate dated 22.03.2022 which suggests that Ganauri Prajapati has died on 01.03.2022.

It appears that nobody has shown any interest to pursue this appeal on behalf of Ganauri Prajapati. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands abated on behalf of him, so far as Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.

The present interlocutory application stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.988 of 2005

By Court:

Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, learned counsel for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.46/2004, arising out of Panki P.S. Case No.30 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, I.P.C) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months to each and further Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for offence under Section 341 IPC. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Panki P.S. Case No.30 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.463 of 2003 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 379 IPC against the appellants.

The prosecution casein brief is that while the informant Dineshwar Prajapati was lying out on his land for construction of one Dhaba, his brother-in-law, Ganauri Prajapati along with sons namely Nirmal and Ajit Prajapati came there, armed with lathi, Garasha and Danda and started abusing with filthy languages and prevented them from laying out on the said land. They were telling that the informant forcibly constructed one drain in front of his door, for which, they were furious and altercation started between them. Thereafter, the appellant namely Ganauri Prajapati, who was armed with Garasha with a view to kill, gave Garasha blow on the head of the informant, due to which, he sustained injury and bleeding started. His sons assaulted him with lathi, when his brother namely, Bhuneshwar Prajapati came to save him, he was too assaulted with lathi. On hearing alarm, when the wife of the informant reached there, she was also assaulted and her necklace which was of silver was snatched away by them, when the villagers assembled there, they fled away.

The police, after investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379 and 307 IPC. Upon which, cognizance has been taken and accordingly, charge has been framed under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 307 IPC. The case has been committed to the court of sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.1 Krishna Ram, P.W.2 Surendra Ram, P.W.3 Dewanti Devi, P.W.4 Malti Devi, P.W.5 Kabila Ram, P.W.6 Bhuneshwar Prajapati, P.W.7 Dineshwar Prajapati, P.W.8 Dr. Chandra Bhanu Pratapan.

P.W.-1, Krishna Ram, has stated that he reached at the place of occurrence hearing alarm and saw the injury on the head of Bhuneshwar Prajapati and Dineshwar Prajapati. Further, he stated that the assault was between both the sides but he could not see any injury on the person of the accused persons. There was no injury of Garasha and the assault was caused with lathi and danda.

P.W.-2, Surendra Ram, had also reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw that while Dineshwar was laying out over his land for construction of Dhaba, the accused persons obstructed him and they claimed the said land and this led to altercation and assault among them. He had reached at the spot after five minutes of the alleged occurrence. He could not see as to who assaulted how many blows on the persons of the injured. According to him, there was no intention to kill the injured.

P.W.-3, Dewanti Devi, had reached at the spot after half an hour of the alleged occurrence. She stated that Dineshwar was assaulted with Danda by the accused Nirmal due to which he sustained injury on his head and Bhuneshwar was assaulted by the Nirmal, Ganauri and Ajit Prajapati due to which he sustained injury on his right side of his eye. She stated that the dispute was with respect to drain. The accused persons were armed with Danda and were not armed with lathi, Bhala and Garasha. She also deposed that there no intention to kill the informant and his brother.

P.W.-4, Malti Devi, has reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw that while the Dineshwar was laying out on his land for construction of Dhaba, the accused Ganauri assaulted him on his head and his brother too. She is an illiterate lady. She is not aware of any case filed by Ganauri Prajapati against Dineshwar Prajapati. Ganauri is brother-in-law of Dineshwar Prajapati.

P.W.-5, Kabila Ram, had deposed that on the allged date of occurrence he was sitting in front of his door seeing Dineshwar and his brother was laying out for the construction of Dhaba. In the meantime, Dineshwar was objected by Ganauri Prajapati due to which altercation developed between them and the alleged assault took place. He saw the injury on the head of Dineshwar but could not say as to who assaulted him. In the cross-examination, he had deposed that the drain was old and belong to Ganauri. This witness had been declared hostile.

P.W.-6, Bhuwneshwar Prajapati, is the brother of the informant and has stated that while he along with his brother was laying out for the construction of Dhaba on their land Ganauri, Ajit and Nirmal armed with Garasha and Lathi came there and obstructed them due to which altercation developed and thereafter alleged assault took place. Further, he stated that there was one Garasha blow and Ganauri Prajapati was armed with Garasha. He didn’t know the khata number and plot number of the alleged land. He deposed that the alleged land was given to them by his mother-in-law. He also deposed that there is a counter case filed by Ganauri against them.

P.W.-7, Dineshwar Prajapati, is the informant and the main vitctim of this case and had stated that he along with his brother was laying out for construction of Dhaba on their land but Ganauri armed with Garasha and Ajit and Nirmal armed with lathi came there to prevent them thereafter occurrence taken place. Ganauri assaulted him with Garasha on his head due to which he sustained injury on his head and Ajit and Nirmal Prajapati had also assaulted him with lathi on his back. When his brother came to save him, he was also assaulted with blunt portion of the Garasha on his left side of the eye and Ajit and Nirmal Prajapati too assaulted him with lathi. This witness also admitted about one counter case being G.R. Case No.467 of 2003 filed by the accused against him. He is residing in his sasural since 1975.

P.W.-8, Chandra Bhanu Pratap, is the Doctor who had examined the injured namely Bhuneshwar on 02.04.2003 at 6:30 P.M. and found lacerated wound ½"x¼"x skin deep on left eye brow laterally, abrasion ¼"x¼" on lumbar region and also examined the injured informant Dineshwar Prajapati and found lacerated wound 1"x¼"x skin deep on vault anteriority and complaining of lamba pain. According to the Doctor, the injures were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance.

The defense has also examined two witnesses which are D.W.1 and D.W.2.

D.W.1, Dukhu Prajapati, who has stated that he had land under Khata No.66 Plot No.593 and 594 at village Parasiya which was his ancestral land. There was one house over it and it has been sold to Ganauri Prajapati four years ago. The said land was bounded and there was also one drain on it. The drain was in his possession after the sale of the land. Further, Dineshwar Prajapati had got no any claim over the said land and was not in possession over the said land. During cross-examination this witness has admitted that in Khata No.66 there is only one plot i.e. Plot No.593 in which his nephew have also got share. Dineshwar Prajapati is son-in-law of his cousin nephew who had only one daughter and Dineshwar Prajapati was the Ghar-Damad in his house. After marriage Dineshwar started residing at his sasural house and he has got possession over the same. He has executed the sale deed in favour of the wife of Ganauri Prajapati. Ganauri Prajapati is also his nephew.

D.W.2, Maheshi Prasad Singh is a formal witness and has proved the sale deed, one agreement and correction slip. He stated that the vendor Dukhu Prajapati himself came before him for preparation of the sale deed. He had brought one purcha and receipt with him. Dukhu Prajapati had got one and half share over the said land and rest share belongs to Balchand. He admitted that the sale deed was executed after the alleged occurrence.

By referring to the above statement especially the statement of P.W.6, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a case and counter case between the parties. There was scuffle between the parties over a drain and they are neighbours and close relative also. Further, it has been submitted that no deadly weapon has been used in the alleged crime as the conviction itself suggest that they had been convicted under Sections 341 and

323 IPC. It has also been submitted that the case is of the year 2003. They have suffered a lot and, on that basis, it has been submitted that instead of sentencing in the interest of justice the sentence of fine will be enough.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:-

(i) There is a case and counter case between the parties.

(ii) The incident is of the year 2003.

(iii) Both the appellants have remained in custody for about two days.

Considering the above fact, the conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC is hereby upheld as that has not been challenged before me and further, from perusal of the records, it appears that the there is an injured witness and other witnesses have also supported the factum of the scuffle between the parties and the counter case also suggest the same fact.

Considering the above mitigating circumstances available on record, the sentencing part is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay Rs.5,000/- each as fine to be deposited in the court below within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, the appellants shall further sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

With above modification of the sentencing part, the present Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.

Since the appellants are already on bail and as such, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.