Mantu Rajwar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner- informant against the judgment dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court 3rd, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1991 whereby the opposite party no. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the learned trial

court.

The prosecution case arises out of a written report of one Mantu Rajwar that when the informant was ploughing his paddy field alongwith other

person, all of a sudden, the opposite parties alongwith accused Md. Ansari, Chottu Babu Ansari, Ali Ansari, Khadab Ansari, Charku Ansari duly

armed with deadly weapons had attacked the informant to kill him. Amin Rajwar was assaulted with Tangi by accused Chottu Babu Ansari and Md.

Hussain due to which he had received injuries on his hands. It is further alleged that in course of the fight, Adalat Rajwar was also assaulted by Tangi

by the accused Md. Hussain Ansari. From F.I.R, it also appears that the informant of this case had sustained injuries from the assault opened by all

the accused persons. It is also stated in the F.I.R that the decree regarding the land in question has been obtained by the informant.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed a gross error in not convicting the opposite party no. 2 to 6 only on the

basis that the injury report was not exhibited. He further submits that the allegation against the accused persons were that they have injured the

informant from blunt portion of the Tangi and the learned trial court has committed a gross error in acquitting the opposite party no. 2 to 6 on the

simple reason that the informant sustained injuries from blunt portion of tangi and not from sharp cutting edge and finally came to the conclusion that

there was no intention to kill the informant. He further submits that the order is bad in law and deserves to be set-side.

Per contra the learned APP appearing for the State supports the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and after going through the impugned order including the lower court

records, it appears that the incident took place due to land dispute. Learned trial court has further observed that the land in question belongs to the

accused persons/opposite parties and they were having valid decree of the aforesaid land and the certified copy of preliminary decree of the aforesaid

land has been filed and attached with the case record. Para 19 and 20 of the impugned order is quoted below:

“19. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that due to land dispute occurrence took place and

on perusal of the exhibit-C submitted by the defence side. In course of argument it is established that the land belonging to the accused

persons so they got decree and for which C.C. preliminary decree has been filed and attached with the case record. Further on careful

examination of testimony of Nuni Bala Devi @ Nanu Rajwar (P.W.-6), it is also established that in course of the altercation the accused

persons had also received injuries but however how they received injuries, not explained at all by any of the PWs.

Keeping this aspect of the case, I am of the view that both parties were indulged in mutual exchange of assault and keeping in notice the

exhibit-C which is preliminary decree, passed in favour of accused persons. It appears that accused persons were had in possession of the

land in dispute. It is also further apparent from the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as given before the court on oath that the informant

came to the one the P.O. i.e. paddy field alongwith near about 10 to 11 persons which would indicate also that they had gone there with all

preparation and the same was not at any point was of pious intention. Thus, I find and hold that the informant party were the aggressor and

accused persons had acted in their private defence save their to property and persons.â€​

After going through the entire documents and the finding given by the learned trial court, I do not find any error in the judgment and the opposite

parties 2 to 6 have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial court.

Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khuddu Vs. State of U.P. reported in

1993 Supp. (3) SCC 15 at paragraph no.7, which reads as under:

“7. Admittedly there were civil and criminal proceedings between both the parties. The facts and circumstances go to show that both sides

were armed and two of the accused received gunshot injuries. It is not clear from the records that at what point of time the actual attack by

the accused took place. If the accused had already dealt several blows on the deceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the

accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of

the land some days ago. Therefore even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the deceased and others

had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence. In these circumstances, the plea of the accused that

they also acted in self-defence cannot altogether be ignored. At any rate their plea also appears to be plausible.â€​

In view of the aforesaid observation and judicial pronouncement, the instant revision application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.