Jharkhand High Court
Haridwar Prasad Bhagat (Deleted ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 796 of 2013
1. Haridwar Prasad Bhagat (deleted vide order dated 27.01.2021)
2. Bijay Kumar Bhagat ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 852 of 2013
Ajay Kumar Bhagat ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
12/05.02.2021
1. After the conclusion of the argument on 28.01.2021, the
matter was directed to be posted on 01.02.2021 and today, when
the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar has again argued the
case and made certain submissions. She has submitted that
P.W.-1 is the eye-witness of the occurrence and this witness has
not stated that Haridwar Prasad Bhagat had provoked others
for the assault whereas P.W.-11 had made such statement and
therefore, there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-11, in as much as, there is omission to that effect in the
evidence of P.W.-1.
She submits that there were altogether 6 witnesses, but only 3
have faced the trial as the other 3 witnesses could not be
identified. She submits that all the accused persons were said to
have assaulted, but there were four injuries found in the person
of the informant and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to
benefit of doubt.
She submits that there is land dispute between the parties and
there was no reason for the petitioners to assault the informant-
party, in as much as, the case was decided by the Deputy
Commissioner in favour of the petitioners which has come in
the evidence of P.W.-1 and the case which was filed against the
petitioners on 04.08.2005 by the informant-party under Sections
467, 468, 472, 471, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the
petitioners have been ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated
14.07.2017. She submits hat there is no motive for the petitioners
to assault the informant-party.
She has further submitted that the investigating officer of the
case has submitted that he came to the place of occurrence upon
receiving a telephonic information and he has also stated that
the offence being cognizable, he had made a station diary entry,
but the same has not been produced and exhibited before the
learned court below and accordingly, all the subsequent
statements are statements under Section 162 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. The investigating officer has stated that
blood-stained cloths were not handed over to the investigating
officer and consequently the same has not been exhibited before
the learned court below as material exhibit.
2. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 173
para-20. She submits that none of the weapons including knife,
firearm, lathi and danda, which were said to have been used in
the occurrence, have been recovered by the investigating
officer. She has further referred to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Criminal Appeal No. 374 of
2020 to submit that in such circumstances, in absence of cogent
clinching evidence against the accused, the accused are entitled
for benefit of doubt.
3. She submits that aforesaid aspect of the matter has not
been properly considered by the learned courts below and
accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned
courts below called for interference.
4. At the end, she submits that considering the nature of
offence and the fact that the F.I.R. is of 30.08.2005, some
sympathetic view may be taken, inasmuch as, the present age of
the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is 62 and 60 years respectively and
they do not have any criminal antecedent. She submits that
some modification in the sentence is called for under the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
5. Arguments concluded.
6. Order reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
