http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  115 of 2006

PETITIONER: Parme Hansda and another

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated  5.5.2003 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of  1991(P).         Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The prosecution case in brief is that Jharia Kisku, father of the first  informant, had gone to  Simlong Hatia on  Monday and when he did not  return by night, then on the next day at about at 8 A.M., Prame Hansda  (appellant No.1) informed the first informant that his father Jharia Kisku was  caught while he was committing theft of one Bati in his house in the night of  Monday and thereafter he was tied with a rope. Thereafter the first informant  and others went to Baraghaghari and they found Jharai Kisku tied at the  house of the Pradhan. On their arrival a Panchayat was called for.  It was  stated that after committing theft of one Bati, Jharia Kisku was trying to flee  away and thereafter he was caught and he was assaulted and tied with a rope.  A sum of Rs.100/- was also imposed as fine by the Panchayat. On enquiry  from Jharia Kisku, it was found that he was brutally assaulted by the  appellants by Lathi and Danda by levelling false allegation of theft against  him and he was tied with a rope. The first information report was lodged  accordingly. The police investigated into the case and submitted a charge  sheet in the case against the appellants. The appellants appeared before the  Additional Sessions Judge where charge was framed under Sections 342 and  304 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty.     

After considering the evidence and hearing learned counsel, the trial  court vide its order dated 8.11.1990 found the accused Parme Hansda and  Churka Hansda guilty and convicted them under Sections 304 and 342 IPC.

Against the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was filed in the High Court  which was dismissed on 5.5.2003 by the impugned judgment.  Hence, the  present appeal.

The post mortem report discloses the following injuries on the  deceased :

(i)     One lacerated wound on right forearm ulna side  measuring 2" x  = " x  Bone deep.

(ii)    One lacerated wound on left lower leg 5" below knee  joint measuring 1" x 1" x  Bone deep.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

(iii)   One abrasion on left side of forehead measuring 1" x 1".

(iv)    Parietal bone of right side of head fractured and  depressed.  

(v)     Ligature mark on both areas.

From the facts of the case it appears that the deceased had tried to  commit theft in the house of the appellants during the course of which he  was apprehended by the appellants.  The appellants contacted the headman  of the village and a Panchayat was called which imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-.   

What happened thereafter is mentioned in the FIR in which it is stated  as under: "\005.Thereafter, we asked my father, who stated that on  the previous night Parme Hansda and Churka Hansda had  assaulted him with lathi and danda and had shout thief-thief. On  hearing this, a number of persons came there and thinking that I  was the thief attacked me with lathi and danda and injured me.  Thereafter, they entrusted me to the Pradhan Jetha Hembram  who kept me for the night and till 1:00 O’clock on the next day  at his house tied with a rope with a view to realize the fine. On  Tuesday at 1:00 O’clock, we were bringing him after paying the  fine, when he died in Dadhi village. This is my statement,  which has been recorded and signed."            

From a perusal of the portion of the FIR extracted above, it seems that  the deceased was attacked by other villagers with lathi and danda.  Thus the  possibility that the deceased was beaten up by other villagers and not by the  appellants cannot be ruled out.  Hence, in our opinion the appellants are  entitled to the benefit of doubt.

We have carefully perused the evidence also in this case. There are no  eye witnesses to the incident.  No doubt, some of the witnesses have deposed  before the trial court that it was the appellants who beat the deceased, in  view of the version given in the FIR (mentioned above) the evidence on this  point cannot be said to be totally reliable.   

The appellants have already undergone imprisonment for 5 years.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.  The conviction  and sentence of the appellants are set aside.  The appellants are directed to  be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.