RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned A.P.P.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2003, arising out of Basia P.S. Case No.18 of 2003 (G.R. No.210 of 2003), whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 452/ 323/ 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326 IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C and also pay fine to the injured Pachisram Joggi with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Basia P.S. Case No.18 of 2003 dated 09.04.2003 in the district Gumla.

The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan (Ext.-3) of informant namely, Ganshu Joggi (P.W.-5). As per the F.I.R there was quarrel between the family members of the informant and the accused-appellant and on being agitated, the appellant namely, Dipak Joggi @ Dilip Joggi, brought a sharp cutting weapon and by that weapon he has assaulted Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) on his neck and his daughter-inlaw namely, Smt. Ghurni Devi (P.W.-10) on her head.

On the basis of said allegation, against the present appellant, the investigation has been done and the chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 452/ 324/ 326/ 307 I.P.C on 04.08.2003. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed on 09.01.2004 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses.

5. P.W.-1, Smt. Sumitra Devi, is an eye witness, but she has been declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the present appellant is her son.

6. P.W.-2, Smt. Bhokhali Gosain, who is mother-in-law of the appellant, has stated that there was darkness and there was free fight between the family members and due to which she has sustained injury.

7. P.W.-3, Dinesh Gosai, has been declared hostile, but he has stated that the present appellant is his son-in-law.

8. P.W.-4, Mahli Bhagat, is not a related witness and he has been declared hostile.

9. P.W.-5, Ganshu Joggi, is the informant of the case and father of the victim Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) and he has supported the allegation. In his cross-examination, it has only been solicited that the parties were in litigating terms and they are close relatives.

10. P.W.-6, is the Doctor, who has examined the victim Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) and Smt. Ghurni Devi (P.W.-10) and he has also proved the injury. Injury upon Smt. Ghurni Devi is on the left perital region scalp, caused by hard and blunt substance, while injury upon Pachisram Joggi is on the left side of neck, which has been caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=FARLzxb7T713hJCp0t1ikjs4k7wRedmr2wI7OlKp6o8R4GrNzhb5erWpdDCt%2BNt1&caseno=Cr.A(SJ)/129/2005&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010094832005&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.