The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there is no requirement of law that conviction cannot be maintained on the basis of evidence of police personnel, who are also victims of the crime.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant and the S.D.P.O. Lohardaga received information about the blockage of the road due to the Durga Puja procession and two persons riding on a motorcycle from the wrong side blocked the road. When the police personnel tried to stop them, both the person used criminal force and violence against the police personnel and also tried to provoke the public against them. Also, they didn’t have driving licenses and disclosed their names as Shiv Prasad Sahu and Simant Saurav and also indulged in abusing the police personnel and obstructing in discharge of their lawful duties.
The FIR was registered under Section 341, 353, 323, 504/34 IPC. However, they were discharged from the offenses under Section 341 and 353 IPC, and the trial proceeded against them only for the offenses under Section 323/504 read with Section 34 IPC. Furthermore, after the conclusion of the trial, the Petitioners were held guilty of offenses under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C and their appeal was also partly allowed and they were released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that a large number of the public were present at the time of the occurrence, still, no independent witnesses were examined other than police personnel. It was furthermore submitted that no charge was framed under Section 34 of the IPC. So, both the petitioners could not be convicted simultaneously.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that the scope of the revision is very limited and the Petitioners have been treated very leniently and were also granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that there is no legal requirement that a conviction can't be sustained on the testimony of police officers who are themselves victims of the crime, hence the petitioners' contention that no independent witness examination was conducted cannot be upheld.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no reason for interference by way of this revision.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the revision petition.
Case title: Simant Saurav @ Simant Saunabh V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No: Cr. Revision No. 1050 of 2015
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
