AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Prasad Deo, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.M. Tripathi assisted by Mrs. Nutan Sharma, Advocates as well as learned counsel for the State,
Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2003
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. III), Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1999 whereby the appellant Ritlal Verma
and Basant Verma, have been found guilty for offence punishable under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the charge
under Section 147, 148,
307, 307/149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi have also been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The
learned Trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 2000 /- each under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the fine amount of Rs.
2000/- each shall be paid to the injured Vinod Verma and Kusmi Devi by way of compensation and in case of default in payment of fine, each convict
shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.Â
Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal
before this Hon’ble Court.
The prosecution case is based upon the written report, submitted by Upendra Verma, (P.W. 7) before the Officer-in-Charge, Mufassil Police
station, Giridih on 05.11.1998, alleging inter alia that in the month of September, 1997, informant has purchased 15 decimals land from Basmatia Devi
(wife of Bhim Mahato). In the said land, informant has grown papaya and kudrum. It is alleged that today (05.11.1998) at around 7.00 a.m., Usha
Devi (wife of Ritlal Verma), Chintaman Verma (son of Ritlal Verma) came to his field and were plucking the papaya and destroying kudrum tree. On
protest made by informant’s brother (Vinod Verma), Usha Devi and Chintaman Verma started abusing, the brother of informant. Basant Verma
having tangi, Ritlal Verma having farsha, Kanchan Devi (wife of Basant Verma) having lathi came there. Basant Verma (appellant no. 2) assaulted,
the wife of informant, by means of tangi on right eye and also on the right hand. Ritlal Verma (appellant no. 1) assaulted, the informant’s brother
Vinod Verma, by means of farsha on his head and right leg with intention to kill. Co-accused Kanchan Devi and Usha Devi assaulted mother of the
informant (Tokni Devi) and also removed the saree worn by his mother. After seeing the occurrence, co-villager Natha Ram, Namchand Mahto,
Bhim Mahto and others came and removed the accused persons.Â
On the basis of written report, police registered Mufassil, P.S. Case No. 325/1998 dated 05.11.1998 under Section 341, 323, 307, 506, 447, 379/34
of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted chargesheet bearing no. 276 of 1998 dated 30.12.1998 under Section
147/148/149/324/323/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 17.6.1999 and the case has
been committed to the court of Sessions vide notification dated 05.07.1999. The charge has been framed against all the four accused persons under
Section 307/149, 307, 147, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and separately against Basant Verma and Ritlal Verma (appellants) under Section 148,
307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code vide charge dated 22.12.1999. 6. That prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses and also
adduced documentary evidence. Ram Prasad Mahto @ Prasad Mahto has been examined as P.W. 1, Jagarnath Ram @ Natha Ram has been
examined as P.W. 2, Bhim Mahto as P.W. 3, Namchand Mahto as P.W. 4, Vinod Verma one of the injured as P.W.5, Kusmi Devi as P.W. 6,
Upendra Verma (informant) as P.W. 7, Doctor B.P. Singh (medical Officer) as P.W. 8, Jaideo Rout (Advocate clerk) being a formal witness as
P.W. 9.
The prosecution has also proved signature on written report as Exhibit1, endorsement on written report as Exhibit 1/1, injury report of Kusmi Devi
and Vinod Verma as Exhibit 2 and 2/1, signature on the F.I.R. as Exhibit 3, sale deed no. 5643 and sale deed no. 5644 as Exhibit 4 and 4/1.Â
Ram Prasad Mahto @ Prasad Mahto, brother of the informant has been examined as P.W.1. This witness has stated that when his mother Tokni
Devi went to orchard to have papaya, she was assaulted by Kanchan Devi and Usha Devi. On brawl, this witness went there and saw Ritlal Mahto
having farsha, Basant having tangi, Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi having lathi and they were assaulting Vinod Verma. Ritlal assaulted Vinod Mahto
on his head, hand and leg. Basant Verma also assaulted Vinod by tangi, Kusmi Devi was assaulted by Basant Verma through tangi near the eye and
right hand. Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi also assaulted Vinod, brother of this witness and mother and also removed her saree. This witness has
further stated, that when Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi were plucking the papaya from his purchased land, then mother of this witness asked them
not do so, due to which quarrel started. This witness has further stated that the said land has been purchased from Basmatia Devi, wife of Bhim
Mahto and the same is under their possession. This witness has further stated, during cross-examination that land has been partitioned between father
of Usha Devi but no partition has taken place between Usha Devi and Basmatia Devi (vendor of this witness). This witness has further stated, that he
has purchased the land from Bhim Mahto, who is husband of Basmatia Devi. This witness has stated, that he has seen the occurrence from his
courtyard which is situated in front of the land. This witness has further stated that Kusmi Devi has sustained injuries on two places one on the eyes
and another on the hand but several injuries were caused upon Vinod. Bleeding injury on head and other injury on hand and leg. This witness has
stated that Vinod became unconscious because of assault. Initially they took the injured to the police station and from police station to the hospital,
where they had been treated by Dr. Ibrahim Shikoh.  Defence has cross-examined this witness but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the
prosecution case.Â
Jagarnath Ram @ Natha Ram has been examined as P.W. 2. This witness is also an eye-witness to the occurrence, who saw Ritlal Verma having
farsha, Basant Verma having tangi, Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi having lathi. Basant Verma assaulted Kusmi Devi by tangi near her eye and leg.
Ritlal Verma assaulted Vinod by means of farsha on his head and after assaulting, the accused persons fled away. During cross-examination, this
witness has stated that Basant Verma assaulted Kusmi Devi twice by means of tangi near the eye and the leg. Ritlal Verma assaulted Vinod once by
means of farsha on head. During crossexamination, this witness has stated that his statement has not been recorded by the police.Â
Bhim Mahto has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness has stated, that his wife and Usha Devi are own sisters and his wife got the land by way
of gift deed (danpatra). This witness has admitted during cross-examination, that land have never been partitioned between Basmatia Devi and Usha
Devi and Basmatia Devi has sold the portion of the land, which was under their cultivation.  This witness has been cross-examined but nothing
has been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case.Â
Namchand Mahto has been examined as P.W. 4. This witness has stated, that he saw Basant with tangi and Ritlal with farsha. Ritlal Verma
assaulted Vinod on head, hand and leg by farsha and Basant assaulted sister-in-law of Vinod by tangi near right eye. This witness has also supported
the prosecution case but defence has not elucidated anything to disbelieve the prosecution case.Â
Vinod Verma, one of the injured of the case has been examined as P.W. 5. This witness has stated, that quarrel was going on between Ritlal
Verma, Basant Verma and Chintaman Verma, when he went there. Ritlal Verma assaulted him on head by farsha from behind due to which, he fell
down and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him. Kusmi Devi was assaulted by Basant Verma with tangi on her right eye due to which she
became unconscious. They were brought to the hospital. This witness has stated, that he sustained injuries on four places, one on the head caused by
Ritlal Verma, second on the leg caused by tangi and third on the hand caused by lathi and lastly on the right leg and knee caused by lathi.This witness
has also been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated.
Kusmi Devi, another injured of the case has been examined as P.W. 6. This witness has stated that Usha Devi and Chintaman Verma were
plucking papaya and destroying the kudrum tree, on which her younger brother-in-law Vinod Verma asked them not to do so upon which Ritlal Verma
by means of farsha assaulted Vinod Verma on the head and by means of tangi on the leg and later when this witness went for rescue Basant Verma
also assaulted near her left eye through tangi. Kanchan Devi assaulted on her back and right hand by lathi. This witness has stated that after
sustaining injury Vinod Verma, became unconscious. This witness has categorically stated that she was assaulted near her eye by Basant
Verma.Nothing has been elucidated during cross-examination by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case.Â
Upendra Verma (informant) of the case has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness has also stated, that Usha Devi and Chintaman Verma were
plucking papaya and destroying the kudrum tree, which was opposed by his mother, Kanchan Devi assaulted his mother by lathi and when his brother
went for rescue, all three started abusing. Ritlal Verma has assaulted Vinod on his head with intention to kill by means of farsha and also on the right
hand and right leg. This witness has further stated, that Basant Verma has assaulted wife of this witness by means of tangi on right eye and on right
hand. During crossexamination this witness has stated that accused persons are their agnates and Basmatia Devi and Usha Devi are sisters. They
have no brother. The land in question initially belongs to father of Basmatia and has admitted, that before sale of land, there was no partitition between
the sisters and Ritlal Verma is residing as a ‘gharjamai’. This witness has stated that his wife sustained three injuries caused by tangi and his
brother sustained four injuries which was caused by farsh. There were medically treated by Dr. B.P. Singh, and admitted for 10 days.     Â
Defence has cross-examined but nothing has been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case.Â
Dr. B.P. Singh has been examined as P.W. 8. He is the medical Officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Giridih on 5.11.1998 and examined Kusmi Devi
(wife of Upendra Verma) at 11 a.m and found:-- “(i) Incised wound on cheek left side 1†x ½†x muscles deep
(ii) Scratch on left forearm 1†x ¼â€
(iii) Scratch on right forearm 3/4"" x 1/2
(iv) Bruise red with swelling on back 3†x 1 ½â€. Age of injury about 3 hours.â€
 16. The injury report has been marked as Exhibit-2. On the same day Vinod
Prasad Verma, has also been examined by the doctor who found following injuries on person of Vinod Prasad Verma:-
 “(i) incised wound on scalp 3 ½†x 3/4"" x upto bone
(ii) abrasion on right leg 1†x3/4â€
(iii) bruise with swelling on left arm 3†x 1/2
(iv) bruise with swelling on right forearm 3 ½†x 1/2
(v) Swelling on dorsum of left hand 1 ½†x 1 ½â€. Age of injury within 3 hours.â€
 17. The injury report has been proved as Exhibit 2/1. During crossexamination, this witness has stated that on police requisition, he has examined
the injured. Nothing has been elucidated by the defence, to demolish the evidence of P.W. 8 and Exhibit 2 and 2/1.      Â
Jaideo Raut (a formal witness) being an advocate clerk has been examined as P.W. 9. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the
Officerin-Charge, Suman Anand as Exhibit 1/1 and the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit 3.     After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused Ritlal Verma and Basant Verma have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record, convicted both the appellants under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code but acquitted them for the charge under Section 147/148/307/ 307/149 /506 of the Indian Penal Code.
No appeal against acquittal of Usha Devi and Kanchan Devi or acquittal of these appellants under Section 147, 323, 506 and 307/149 of the Indian
Penal Code has been preferred by the State nor by the informant.Â
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.M. Tripathi assisted by his junior counsel Smt. Nutan Sharma. Learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted, that the case is of the year 1998 between agnates, for a piece of land, which were claimed by both the parties, as prosecution
has also admitted that they have purchased the land from father of Kusmi Devi but at that time, the land was not partitioned between Basmatia Devi
and Usha Devi. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellants, under Section 307,
307/149, 147, 148 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the appellant under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded two
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 324 and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted, that the appellants may be released on Probation of Offenders Act.
The learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution from P.W. 1 to P.W.7 have fully supported the case. There is no material
contradiction in the evidence of Vinod Verma (P.W. 5) and Kusmi Devi (P.W.6), both injured and there is a consistency in the ocular and
documentary evidences i.e. the injury reports of Kusmi Devi and Vinod Verma, which have been marked Exhibit 2 and 2/1, but the doctor has found,
the injury to be simple in nature and as such, the learned Trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.Â
 Thus learned additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted by this
Hon’ble Court against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Having heard, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.M. Tripathi and Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State, perused the entire record, F.I.R. and the exhibits, this court is of the opinion that evidence against Ritlal Verma and Basant Verma are
consistent that they have assaulted by means of farsha and tangi on Kusmi Devi and Vinod Verma, causing injuries which has been proved by Dr.
B.P. Singh (P.W. 8)Â and the same has been brought on record as Exhibit 2 and 2/1. From perusal of the deposition, it appears that defence has not
elucidated anything during cross-examination, to disbelieve the prosecution case and as such this court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant
under Section 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code passed by learned Trial Court is justified and the same is upheld and affirmed by this Court. So
far sentence awarded to the appellants are concerned under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as rigorous imprisonment for two years and
appellants have served a period of nine months, so considering the inter se relationship between the appellants and the informant and the duration of
litigation since 1998, this court is of the opinion, that instead of awarding rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, the same may be modified, awarding monetary compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each against both the appellants in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Learned Trial Court to be paid to the victim Kusmi Devi and Vinod Verma by the appellants. So far sentence under Section 323 is
concerned that is affirmed.Â
In the result, this Criminal appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence. The learned Trial court is directed to issue summons/notice to the
appellants to deposit fine within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the appellants shall serve the sentence as
awarded by the learned Trial Court i.e. rigorous imprisonment for two years plus two thousand fine and in default of fine, rigorous imprisonment for
one year under Section 324 of the Indian Panel Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court No. III), Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1999 in connection with Giridih (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 325/1998 consequent G.R. No. 1940/1998
stands upheld and affirmed with the aforesaid modifications.
The present appeal stands dismissed.Â
Let the L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action.