Jharkhand High Court
Khokhiya Devi @ Khokhiia Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.500 of 2020
----
1. Khokhiya Devi @ Khokhiia Devi
2. Brahma Mandal @ Brahmanand Mandal
3. Lakhi Mandal @ Lakhi Ram Mandal
4. Amar Mandal .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
----
nd
08/Dated: 02 December, 2021
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioners
against the impugned judgment dated 06.06.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.30 of 2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Rajmahal whereby and whereunder the learned court has upheld and confirmed the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2019 for the offence under
sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504/34 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code in
connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case no.119 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.214
of 2012 (T.R. No.306 of 2019) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rajmahal.
2. As per the allegation, the revisionists are realtor which was the cause of the
dispute between the parties. The informant was assaulted along with his two
relatives who have sustained finger and wrist injuries which are grievous in nature.
The prosecution has proved the story by examining five witnesses including the
doctor who is P.W.5. The Investigating Officer has not been examined.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that there
are no independent witnesses. Further, it has been stated by referring para-19 of
the cross-examination of P.W.5-the doctor that so called treatment report is
prepared by a private hospital and on that basis, the doctor has deposed before the
court below. The report has not been prepared by the Government Doctor. Thus,
injuries have not been proved. It has been submitted that the prosecution has failed
to substantiate the allegation and revisionists should be acquitted from the charges.
4. The revisionists have also filed a counter case. Both the parties have filed a
case against each others. It has further been submitted that there is no finding
regarding the fact that who is the aggressor.
In view of above facts, it has been submitted that the prosecution has failed
to substantiate the allegation and as such the revisionists should be acquitted from
the charge. Alternatively, it has been argued that they should be given the benefits
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1951 as it is neighbourhood
dispute between the parties.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that
altogether five witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 is the brother of the
informant who has supported the allegation. P.W.2 is the neighbour who has also
supported the allegation. P.W.3 is the injured witness who has suffered injury in
her finger. P.W.4 is another injured/informant who has suffered injury in her wrist
(Alna). P.W.5 is the doctor who has deposed on the basis of report prepared by the
private clinic. There is a case and a counter case which is accepted by both the
parties. Injuries caused to the P.W.3 and P.W.4 has also been proved by the
examined witnesses and corroborated by P.W.5-the doctor.
7. In view of the materials available on record and finding recorded by the
court below, the judgement of conviction requires no interference.
So far giving benefits to the revisionists under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1951 is concerned, it appears that it is a neighbourhood dispute
which had occurred in the year 2012. The revisionists have suffered already for a
long period of litigation and they are in custody since 18.09.2021.
8. In view of above discussion, the revisionist are directed to be released on
personal bond of Rs.10,000/- for six months to the satisfaction of the court below,
with condition of good behaviour and maintaining peace. The concerned probation
officer is directed to submit a monthly report to the court regarding the conduct of
the revisionists.
9. With above modification, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.
Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
