Ranjeet Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thur. C.B.I. S.C.B. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16797 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 193 of 2013
 

 
Revisionist :- Ranjeet Singh And Ors.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thur. C.B.I. S.C.B. Lucknow
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- H.G.S. Parihar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted Mr. Abhiuday Pratap Singh, Advocate, appearing for the revisionists, as well as Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - CBI, and perused the record.

Affidavit tendered in the Court on behalf of the revisionists is taken on record.

2. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been filed on behalf of revisionists, Ranjeet Singh, Abdul Kayyum Khan and Har Vijai Singh Chandel being aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2012 instituted by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2004, arising out of RC No.3(S) of 2001, under Sections 343, 323, 448 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow.

3. It is stated by Mr. G.H.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, that during the pendency of the present revision before this Court, one of the revisionists, Har Vijai Singh Chandel has died.

4. Considering the aforesaid, the revision, so far as it relates to revisionist, Har Vijay Singh Chandel stands dismissed as abated.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that revisionists, Ranjeet Singh, Abdul Kayyum Khan and Har Vijai Singh Chandel (now deceased) were posted at Police Station Kharaila, District Mahoba; revisionist Ranjeet Singh was Station House Officer and revisionists, Abdul Kayyum and Har Vijai Singh Chandel were driver and constable respectively.

6. As per the prosecution case, on 31.07.2001, at around 12 p.m., the three revisionists forcibly made entry in the house of the complainants and after assaulting them, they were brought to the police station; they were kept in the police station for three days without there being any fir/criminal case registered against them; the villagers gave a complaint in writing to the District Magistrate, Mahoba on 10.08.2001; the District Magistrate made inquiries and himself visited the place of incident and on the basis of District Magistrate's inquiry, the FIR at Crime No.102 of 2001 was registered against the revisionists under Sections 394, 342, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") and Section3(1)(10) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act").

7. Revisionist, Ranjeet Singh thereafter filed a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.5107 of 2001 and this Court transferred the investigation of the said offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI").

8. The CBI registered RC No.03 (S)/2001 and after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet under Sections 323, 343, 448 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in the Court.

9. The prosecution, to proof its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses, besides documentary evidence. The witnesses included Jamuna, Alok Kumar, Ram Shanker Dwivedi, Horilal, Shivpal, Shambhu Dayal, P.K. Srivastava, Krishna Mohan Dwivedi and BGS Bhatnagar.

10. The learned trial Court thereafter convicted and sentenced the revisionists for three months imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC, six months imprisonment under Section 343/34 IPC and three months imprisonment under Section 448/34 IPC respectively, however, they were acquitted for offene under Section 506 IPC. This judgment of conviction and sentenced was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2012.

11. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 rejected the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of sentence.

12. On behalf of the revisionists, Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that two courts below have not considered the evidence in its proper perspective. There are minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It has been further submitted that the impugned judgment and orders of the Courts below are unsustainable and liable to be set-aside; the revisionists were falsely implicated due to the fact that the then sitting M.L.A. of the area, Mr. Badshah Singh was angry with revisionist, Ranjeet Singh and this fact has been mentioned by Mr. P.K. Srivastava, PW-7, who was the investigating officer of the offence. It has been further submitted that the District Magistrate's report, on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered, is a biased report and was given under the influence of the sitting M.L.A. of the area. It has been further submitted that considering all aspects of the matter, the Courts below have committed error of law and fact in not properly appreciating the evidence while passing the impugned judgment and orders thereby convicting and sentencing the revisionists, as mentioned above.

13. Per contra, Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - CBI, has submitted that the CBI made fair investigation and filed charge-sheet for the offence for which the CBI gathered the evidence. It has been further submitted that it is well settled that minor contradictions will not affect the trial and if the core of the case remains intact, looking at the statements of the evidence, which would show the core of the case and considering scope of revision, the Courts below have not committed any error of law or jurisdiction, which warrants this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact regarding conviction and sentence of the revisionists. It has been further submitted that the defence has not produced any witness who could have said that there was enmity between the accused or the persons, who were illegally detained in the police station and were allegedly left out after extracting money. It has been further submitted that it has come in evidence that persons, who were detained at the police station illegally, left out after they could mortgage their property and arranged money. It has been further submitted that the District Magistrate in his spot inspection report categorically said that the villagers were detained only with a motive to extract money.

14. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionists as well as the respondents - CBI and perused the record.

15. This is not a regular appeal and scope of revision is very limited to see whether the Courts below have committed any error of law or jurisdiction. This Court, while considering/deciding the revision, cannot re-appreciate the evidence led before the trial Court, which was also considered by the appellate Court. The two Courts below have concurrently held on the basis of the evidence that the revisionists were guilty for the offence under Sections 323/34, 343/34 and 448/34 IPC and the minimum sentences have been awarded to them. Therefore, these is no scope for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the guilt of the revisionists.

16. At this stage, Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the revisionists, submits that this is first offence by the revisionists and they have not committed any other offence in 21 years and this Court may consider granting of benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1958")

17. Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - CBI, submits that it is a discretion of the Court to grant or refuse the benefit of the Act, 1958, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and he has no objection if the benefit of the Act, 1958 is given to the two revisionists.

18. In view thereof, the present revision is dismissed. However, the revisionists are granted benefit of the Act, 1958 and they are directed to submit their personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each before the trial Court and undertaking that they will not commit any offence in future. The bonds shall hold good for a period of one year.

Order Date :- 14.11.2022

MVS/-