Jharkhand High Court
Talamay Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 785 of 2012
Bhim Tudu (Deleted vide order dt. 25.06.2018)
1. Talamay Devi, Wife of Late Bhim Tudu
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
12/24.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party-State.
Arguments of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the
present petition was filed by one Bhim Tudu, but during the pendency
of this revision application, the original petitioner had expired and one
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4368/2018 was preferred by
the wife of the original petitioner to pursue the case. He submits that
the said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated
25.06.2018 and in the said order, it was also recorded that the original
petitioner-Bhim Tudu has died on 11.01.2018 necessitating his wife to
pursue the revision application in view of the fact that the original
petitioner had lost his job on account of his conviction.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned judgments, has submitted that the independent witnesses of
the case i.e., P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 were declared hostile and P.W.-7 and
P.W.-9 were the two investigating officers of the case. The
investigation was initially taken up by P.W.-7 and continued by P.W.-
9, who submitted the charge-sheet. The learned counsel submits that
the other witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witness, are the
constables who were examined as P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and they are the
interested witnesses. The learned counsel also submits that the doctor,
who treated the informant, has not been examined in the present case.
He also submits that the ASI who recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant, namely, Naresh Prasad was also not examined. The learned
counsel submits that there was no intention for assault and submits
that there was a sudden fight had taken place.
5. The learned counsel submits that the basic ingredient for
offence under Section 353 of IPC was not satisfied, as there was no
occasion to interfere with discharge of official duty of the informant.
The learned counsel submits that the informant as well as the convict
of the present case, both were from the police department. The learned
counsel submits that these aspects of the matter have not been
properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the
impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference.
6. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the petitioner
was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year for offence under Sections 353 and 323 of IPC and further
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence
under Sections 427 of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. It also transpired during the course of argument that the
learned appellate court found that the basic ingredients for offence
under Section 427 of IPC was not satisfied and the petitioner was
acquitted for the said offence. However, conviction of the petitioner
for offence under Sections 353/323 of IPC was sustained by the
learned appellate court and the learned appellate court refused to
interfere with the sentence imposed upon the convict for offence under
Sections 353 and 323 of IPC.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State, while
opposing the prayer, has submitted that there are concurrent findings
recorded by the learned courts below, so far as the conviction of the
petitioner for offence under Sections 353 and 323 are concerned. She
submits that the prosecution story was fully supported by the
informant, the investigating officers as well as the three constables,
who were present at the time of occurrence and were also eye-
witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. She submits that non-examination of the
doctor is not fatal to the prosecution case, in as much as, the
prosecution case is supported by the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.
She submits that the constables who were examined as eye-witnesses,
cannot be said to be interested witnesses as the convict as well as the
informant, both were of the police department. She also submits that
otherwise also, the eye-witness and other witnesses have been
thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence. The learned
counsel also submits that merely because some of the witnesses i.e.,
P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 were declared hostile, the same is not fatal to the
prosecution case. The learned counsel submits that the basic
ingredients for offence under Sections 353 and 323 of IPC were duly
satisfied in the present case and the learned courts below have passed
well-reasoned judgment by convicting and upholding the conviction
of the petitioner for offence under Section 353 and 323 of IPC. The
learned counsel submits that as the present case is being pursued by
the wife of the original petitioner, there is no question of serving the
sentence if the conviction is upheld. He submits that the impugned
judgement does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and
accordingly, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.
8. Arguments are concluded.
9. Post this case on 20th September, 2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
