Prakash Ram And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

These criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction under section 302/149 I.P.C and under section 148 I.P.C dated 16.06.2001 and the order of sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302/149 I.P.C and R.I for Two years for the offence under section 148 I.P.C dated 20.06.2001 inflicted upon each appellant by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.371 of 1994 and, therefore, these appeals were heard together and now disposed of by this common order.

Six persons were named as assailants in the First Information Report which was lodged on the basis of fard-beyan of Sheo Shankar Pandey, father of the deceased, namely, Parmanand Pandey, recorded on 08.08.1984, at about 7.30 a.m. After the investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet against seven accused persons.

The convicts, namely, Prakash Ram, Gopal Ram and Binod Ram are the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.237 of 2001 and the convict, namely, Mundil Mahto is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.265 of 2001.

The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih has acquitted the accused, namely, Puran Mahto of the charges framed against him; he was not named in the First Information Report.

By an order dated 08.07.2019, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 265 of 2001 has abated qua the appellants, namely, Guda Mahto and Bholi Mahto.

All the appellants have faced the trial on the charge of causing death of Parmanand Pandey in furtherance of common object of all and for causing grievous hurt to Sheo Shankar Pandey, father of the deceased.

The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses during the trial

In his fard-beyan, the informant has stated that on 08.08.1984, at about 7.30 a.m, he along with his son were ploughing their field. At that time the accused persons, namely, Prakash Ram, Binod Ram and Gopal Ram came there and at their instance other accused persons, namely, Guda Mahto and Mundil Mahto, armed with lathi and Farsa came there. The informant has alleged that Prakash Ram was holding a sword, Binod Ram a Farsa and the other accused persons were armed with Tangi. When the accused persons started abusing them, they ran away from their field, however, the accused persons encircled them and Prakash Ram assaulted his son on his head. The accused persons, namely, Guda Mahto, Binod Ram, Gopal Ram, Mundil Mahto and Bholi Mahto have also assaulted them with Farsa and Tangi. On raising hullah by him, the co-villagers, namely, Manoj Pandey, Ashok Pandey, Shyamanand Pandey and Ramanand Pandey came there. According to the informant, they have seen the occurrence. The informant has alleged that the accused persons have assaulted them due to a long-standing land dispute between them. He says that condition of his son was precarious and therefore he was taken to Government Hospital, Gandey. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Giridih and from there he was brought to R.M.C.H, Ranchi, but in course of treatment Parmanand Pandey succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused persons.

The prosecution witnesses, namely, Ramanand Pandey, Shyamanand Pandey, Manoj Pandey and Ashok Pandey have been projected as eye-witness by the prosecution.

Insofar as the role played by the appellant-Mundil Mahto is concerned, all the eye-witnesses have failed to attribute any specific role played by him in causing death of Parmanand Pandey. However, P.W 2 has said that along with other accused persons Mundil Mahto has also assaulted the informant.

But then, the charge under section 324 I.P.C framed against the accused persons has failed.

In view of such state of affairs, we are inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the appellant, namely, Mundil Mahto. The prosecution has failed to establish the role played by him in the occurrence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 148 and section 302/149 I.P.C and the order of sentence passed against the appellant, namely, Mundil Mahto are set-aside.

His conviction under section 148 I.P.C is also set-aside.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.265 of 2001 in respect of the appellant-Mundil Mahto is allowed.

The appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.265 of 2001, namely, Mundil Mahto who is on bail is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him.

It has come in the prosecution's evidence that Parmanand Pandey was brought to the Government Hospital at Gandey in injured condition and thereafter he was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Giridh. However, he was not treated there also and finally referred to R.M.C.H, Ranchi, where he has died two days after the occurrence. The deceased-Parmanand Pandey was not treated properly would appear from this sequence of events under which he was transferred to three hospitals. Dr. Renu Bala-P.W 5 who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found stitched wound on Parmanand Pandey. Evidently, the extent of the injuries caused to Parmanand Pandey could not have been ascertained by P.W 5. No injury report of Parmanand Pandey has been brought on record. The prosecution has alleged that Parmanand Pandey was assaulted by several persons. But complicity of only two persons in assaulting Parmanand Pandey has been established. And, it is not proved that the accused persons have caused death of Parmanand Pandey in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly.

In the above facts, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302/149 I.P.C framed against the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.237 of 2001, namely, Prakash Ram, Gopal Ram and Binod Ram.

Accordingly, their conviction under section 302/149 I.P.C is set-aside. Their conviction under section 148 I.P.C is also set-aside.

However, the prosecution has established their presence at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses have made allegations against the accused-appellants, namely, Prakash Ram and Gopal Ram of assaulting Parmanand Pandey with sword and Tangi. But, the role played by Binod Ram has not been specifically disclosed by P.W 1, when he was examined in the court. P.W 2, P.W 3 and P.W 4 are silent on what role Binod Ram has played in the occurrence.

For the above reasons, the appellant, namely, Binod Ram is convicted under section 323 I.P.C and sentenced to R.I for One year.

The deceased-Parmanand Pandey has suffered grievous injury, but the prosecution has failed to establish who is the author of which injury.

Accordingly, the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.237 of 2001, namely, Prakash Ram and Gopal Ram are convicted under section 325 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for Two years with fine of Rs.10000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall serve R.I for One month each.

Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, the learned A.P.P states that the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.237 of 2001, namely, Prakash Ram, Gopal Ram and Binod Ram have served sentence of more than 1 year 11 months.

The bail-bonds furnished by the appellants, namely, Prakash Ram and Gopal Ram are cancelled. They shall surrender before the court below for serving the remaining sentence. After serving the sentence and on payment of fine, they shall be set-free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other criminal case.

The appellant, namely, Binod Ram is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him.

In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 237 of 2001 is partly allowed.

Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'.

Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.