Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 743 of 2003. Case: Basudeo Yadav and Ors. Vs The State of Jharkhand. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 743 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate and For Respondents: Sudhir Kumar Roy, APP |
| Judges | Ratnaker Bhengra, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 146, 147, 148, 149, 319, 323, 334, 340, 342 |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2017 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
-
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2003 passed by Sri Indradeo Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 338 of 1995 arising out of Basistha Nagar P.S. Case No. 8 of 1993 by which the learned court below has convicted all these appellants under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year under section 147, R. I. for 2 years under section 148, R.I. for 2 years under section 149, R.I. for 1 year under section 323 and one year under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and also passed order that the sentences will run concurrently.
-
The prosecution case as per the fardbayan of one Bariar Ganjhu is that on 09.02.1993 at about 5 p.m., he was at his house. In the meantime, near about 200 to 250 M.C.C. extremists armed with Bharathi gun came and caught him. They also caught hold to Briksh Bhuiyan, Karu Bhuiyan, Krishna Bhuiyan, Shrinath Bhuiyan, Birani Bhuiyan, Fagu Ganjhu, Maina Ganjhu. The extremists made pressured upon the informant and the above co-villagers to join their party (M.C.C.) otherwise they will have to face the dire consequences. They took them in the forest. The accused persons also caught hold of the villagers of Paharpur, namely, Dhaneshwar Yadav, Bishuni Yadav, Karu Bhuiyan, Puran Bhuiyan, Inod Bhuiyan, who were returning from the forest and the accused persons also made pressure to them to join their party. The accused persons tried to press upon the informant and his associates the member of the Lok Samiti to join their party otherwise they have to face dire consequences. They will not allow them to graze the animals in the forest and they will set fire their houses. The accused persons released them in the night. The informant and his associates identified the accused Basdeo Yadav, Jagdeo Yadav, Sarju Yadav, Bodhan Yadav, Hulash Yadav, Binod Mahato, Naresh Thakur, Babuni Yadav of village Paharpur, Kauleshwar Yadav, Buta Yadav, Madheswar Yadav, Bijay Yadav, of village Salaiya, Sukan Yadav, Kauleshwar Yadav, Neman Mahto and Kuldeep Yadav of village Postiya. It is further alleged that on the following date in the morning the informant got information that Prayag Bhuiyan and Lakho Bhuiyan kidnapped one Dhani Bhuiyan with the intention to kill him. He was kidnapped from his house and was taken away to the forest. While the informant was going to inform the matter to the police Station, he saw some unknown persons, who were moving. So he could not inform the matter to the police. It is further alleged that on the same day at about 12 a.m., the accused persons caught hold Thakuri Yadav, Bandhu Yadav of village Paharpur and they pressed upon them to join their party (M.C.C.) and they tagged the hands of both the persons and assaulted them. Thereafter the informant came at police station along with Thakuri Yadav and Chaturgun Yadav.
-
On the basis of fardbayan, formal FIR was registered bearing B. Nagar P.S. Case No. 08 of 1993. Investigation commenced and accused was charge sheeted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The charges were framed and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-
The prosecution has examined altogether sixteen witnesses and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-1), Chatra, held the appellants guilty under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
-
Out of the 16 prosecution witnesses, 6 witnesses were eye witness and they have been examined and they are P.W.2, P.W. 9, P.W.11...
To continue reading
Request your trial