Jharkhand High Court
Haridwar Prasad Bhagat Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 796 of 2013
1. Haridwar Prasad Bhagat son of Late Namini Pd. Bhagat
(deleted vide order dated 27.01.2021)
2. Bijay Kumar Bhagat son of Sri Haridwar Prasad Bhagat
Both are residents of Village- Harindanga, P.O.- Pakur, P.S.-
Pakur(T), Distt.- Pakur (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 852 of 2013
Ajay Kumar Bhagat son of Sri Haridwar Prasad Bhagat
Resident of Village- Harindanga, P.O.-Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (T),
Distt.-Pakur (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For Opp. Party-State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGME NT
C.A.V. On 05.02.2021 Pronounced On 12.02.2021
Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. The name of Haridwar Prasad Bhagat was deleted vide
order dated 27.01.2021 as his legal heirs namely, Bijay Kumar
Bhagat - Petitioner No. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 796 of 2013 and Ajay
Kumar Bhagat - Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 852 of 2013 are
already before this Court and if the case is ultimately dismissed
then the fine imposed upon Haridwar Prasad Bhagat will be
realized from his two sons in equal proportion.
4. These two criminal revision petitions are directed against
judgement dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Appeal No. 44 of 2012 and Cr.
Appeal No. 45 of 2012 whereby the appeals of the petitioners
have been dismissed.
5. The learned trial court vide judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Pakur in G.R. Case No. 422 of 2005
(T.R. No. 325 of 2012) had convicted the petitioners alongwith
Haridwar Prasad Bhagat under Sections 323, 324/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable
under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under
Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code. The convicts were further
sentenced to deposit fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence
under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of
payment of fine, one month extended Rigorous Imprisonment
was directed to be given to them and all the sentences were
directed to be run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the
cases submitted that there were altogether six accused persons
in the case, but only 3 have faced the trial as the other three
accused could not be identified and ultimately, they were
convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. She further
submitted that all the accused persons were said to have
assaulted, but only four injuries were found on the person of
the informant and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to
benefit of doubt.
7. She further submitted that the informant of the case had
suffered four injuries and out of that, one injury was by sharp
weapon on the right palm of the informant and the other three
injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance. She further submitted that there are material
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
accordingly, the petitioners should have been given benefit of
doubt. The learned counsel also submitted that there was land
dispute between the parties which was a cause of false
implication of the petitioners.
8. She further 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.
9. She submitted 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 in connection with the
land was decided by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the
petitioners which has come in the evidence of P.W.-1. She also
submits that in another criminal case which was filed against
the convicts of the present case 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 also submitted that there is no
motive for the petitioners to assault the informant-party.
10. She further submitted that the investigating officer of the
case deposed 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. She submits that the investigating officer
has stated that blood-stained clothes were not handed over to
the investigating officer and consequently, the same has not
been exhibited before the learned court below as material
exhibit. She submits that on account of the aforesaid, the
conviction of the convicts of the present case cannot be
sustained in the eyes of the laws.
11. The learned counsel has submitted 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 further referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2020 to submit that it has been held
that in absence of cogent and clinching evidence against the
accused, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. She
submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case
also, the convicts are entitled to benefits of doubt. She
submitted that the aforesaid aspects of the case have not been
properly considered by the learned courts below and
accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned
courts below call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
12. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
considering the nature of offence and the fact that the F.I.R. is of
30.08.2005 and there was land dispute between the parties and
the present age of the petitioners namely, Bijay Kumar Bhagat
and Ajay Kumar Bhagat are 60 and 58 years respectively and
they have no criminal antecedent, some sympathetic view may
be taken and the sentence may be appropriately modified. She
further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to
give some amount by way of victim compensation to the
Informant-victim.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that there is
concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts
below and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgements. He submitted that the impugned judgements of
conviction do not require any interference in revisional
jurisdiction of this Court.
Findings of this Court
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances and the materials
available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case is
based on the fardbeyan of Ganesh Prasad Bhagat (P.W.-11)
recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police of Pakur (Town) police
station (P.W.-12) who is also the investigating officer of the
case. The fardbeyan was recorded on 30.08.2005 at about 01:15
a.m. As per the fardbeyan, in the night of 29.08.2005 and
30.08.2005, the informant was at his house alongwith his
mother. At about 12:45 A.M., the three convicts alongwith three
unknown persons who had covered their faces entered into the
house of the informant and Haridwar Prasad Bhagat (since
deceased) was holding gupti in his hand, Bijay Prasad Bhagat
was holding knife and Ajay Prasad Bhagat was holding pistol
in his hand. The other three unknown persons were holding
lathi and hasua in their hands. When they entered the house of
the informant, Haridwar Prasad Bhagat (since deceased)
provoked others to kill the Informant and on their provocation,
Bijay Prasad Bhagat attacked the informant due to which he
sustained injury in his right palm which started bleeding. Ajay
Prasad Bhagat fired pistol upon him, which misfired and the
other three unknown persons assaulted the informant by danda
and fists and the accused persons fled away from the spot. As
per the fardbeyan itself, Haridwar Prasad Bhagat (since
deceased) had fraudulently got registered his grandmother's
property at Pakur and in this regard, the informant had filed a
criminal case against him being Pakur (T) P.S. Case No.
142/2005 and the informant had protested against Haridwar
Prasad Bhagat and his family members in grabbing the landed
property of his grandmother which was the reason why the
accused persons committed assault upon him.
15. On the fardbeyan of the informant Ganesh Prasad Bhagat,
Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 167/2005 dated 30.08.2005 was
registered under Sections 458, 341, 323, 324, 506, 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charge-
sheet was submitted under Sections 458, 341, 323, 506, 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur on 16.12.2005 found a
prima facie case against the convicts under the same sections
and took cognizance of the offence under the same sections and
transferred the case to his personal file for commitment and on
26.04.2006, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
16. The court of the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Pakur did not find a prima facie case under Section 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and found a prima facie case under Sections
323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code only against the convicts.
Accordingly, charge was framed under Sections 323 and 324 of
the Indian Penal Code against the convicts which was read over
and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
17. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 13
witnesses to substantiate the case including the informant.
P.W.-1 is Bhagirathi Devi who is the mother of the informant,
P.W.-2 is Prakash Chandra Choudhary, P.W.-3 is Radha Pd. Rai,
P.W.-4 is Hakik Ansari, P.W.-5 is Munilal, P.W.-6 is Rinku
Chatterjee, P.W.-7 is Sheo Pd. Turi, P.W.-8 is Dilip Pandit, P.W.-
9 is Vishal Joseph, P.W.-10 is Pradip Sharma, P.W.-11 is Ganesh
Pd. Bhagat who is the informant of the case, P.W.-12 is S.I.
Nabin Chandra Das who is the Investigating Officer of the case
and P.W.-13 is Dr. Bindeshwari Pd. Singh who is the doctor
who had examined the injured-informant.
18. The prosecution exhibited the fardbeyan dated 30.08.2005
as Exhibit-1, the entire fardbeyan of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 16 7
of 2005 of informant as Exhibit-1/1, the Formal First
Information Report as Exhibit-2 and the injury report of the
informant as Exhibit-3 as documentary evidences.
19. On 26.07.2012, the statements of the petitioners under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein the petitioners
totally denied the allegations and incriminating substances put
to them and claimed to have been falsely implicated due to land
dispute and also claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not
adduce any witness, but produced a certified copy of the Sale-
Deed No. 2616/1997 which was marked as Exhibit-A and
certified copy of order dated 19.11.2005 passed in M.R.P. Case
No. 09 of 1998 and 10 of 1998 passed by the court of Deputy
Commissioner, Pakur which was marked as Exhibit-B.
20. This Court finds that P.W.-1 is the mother of the
informant. She has fully supported the prosecution case and
stated that all the three convicts were the persons who had
come to her house alongwith three other unknown persons who
had covered their faces. She has stated that Bijay Kumar Bhagat
assaulted her son Ganesh by knife who sustained cut injury and
the other accused persons assaulted by lathi and danda. She has
also stated that accused persons committed the offence due to
property. During her cross-examination, she admitted that
there is dispute in regard to the land in which her house is
situated and that Haridwar Prasad Bhagat had fraudulently
issued rent receipt of that land for which a case was filed before
the D.C.L.R. in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in
which appeal was dismissed. In her cross-examination, she
admitted that she is not able to see at night without spectacles.
21. P.W.-2 was found to be a hearsay witness who stated that
the informant reported the matter on telephone about the
occurrence and he had seen the bleeding hand and injury over
the body of the informant. He had taken the informant to the
police station and thereafter, to the hospital.
22. P.W.-3 has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was
sleeping and by hearing the noise, he came out and saw four to
five persons speaking and he saw Haridwar Prasad Bhagat
with 2-3 unknown persons who were speaking. When he went
to the pond, he saw Ganesh in injured condition as his right
hand was bleeding. However, in cross examination, he stated
that he knew the informant for one to two years and he had
purchased land from him and his house was 100 feet away from
the house of the informant.
23. P.W.-4 is the house guard of the informant. He has stated
that he was on duty in the house of the informant and when he
was relaxing at the back yard of the house, he heard the noise
and when he came, he saw that the right hand of the informant
was bleeding. He has also stated that Haridwar Prasad Bhagat
was holding Gupti, Ajay Prasad Bhagat was holding pistol in
his hand and other three accused persons were holding danda in
their hands. He stated that he saw the miscreants running away
towards south and saw Haridwar prasad Bhagat and his son
and also saw three persons with covered faces. He identified
the petitioners.
24. The other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.- 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were
declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the
prosecution case.
25. The informant was examined as P.W.-11 who has fully
supported the prosecution case and has specifically named
Haridwar Prasad Bhagat who was holding Gupti, Bijay Bhagat
who was holding knife and Ajay Bhagat who was holding
pistol and stated that they had come to his house with three
unknown persons with covered face. This witness further stated
that Haridwar Prasad Bhagat was provoking Bijay and Ajay to
kill his mother and Bijay attacked upon him by knife, pursuant
to which, he suffered injury in his right hand and Ajay fired
pistol which misfired. The unknown persons had assaulted him
with lathi and fists and when they raised noise, the neighbours
came and the accused persons escaped. He has stated that he
used telephone to inform the police who came to his house and
recorded his fardbeyan and then he went to the hospital where
he was treated. The informant, during his cross-examination,
has stated that he has enmity with the accused persons and he
has filed a criminal case against them. He has further stated in
his cross-examination that a case was filed relating to certain
plot of land which was pending before the Deputy
Commissioner, Pakur and his mother Bhagirathi Devi had
received one Bigha of land from registered sale-deed from
Haridwar Prasad Bhagat.
26. P.W.-12 is the investigating officer of the case who
recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has supported the
prosecution case. He had recorded the statement of the
informant and other witnesses and had received the injury
report and recorded the statements of the accused persons.
Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to the officer-in-
charge, as he was transferred. In his cross-examination, he has
stated that he received the information of occurrence on
telephone and he recorded the report in the case-diary. He has
further stated that he had not investigated regarding the civil
dispute between the informant and the accused persons and the
informant had not given blood-stained clothes to him and he
had not recovered any weapon or blood from the place of
occurrence.
27. P.W.-13 is the doctor who had stated that on 30.08.2005,
he examined the informant and found altogether four injuries,
out of them, one was caused by sharp cutting weapon on the
right palm, though it was simple in nature and the others were
caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature.
In cross-examination, he has been cross-examined on the point
that the injury no. 1 i.e. sharp cutting injury can be self-
manufactured and the other injuries are possible due to fall on
hard substance. Thus, out of 13 witnesses, six witnesses were
declared hostile and other witnesses supported the prosecution
case and it has come that there was property dispute between
the parties.
28. The learned trial court, after considering all the evidences
recorded that, it is an admitted case of the informant as well as
the accused that there is civil dispute pending between them.
However, the learned trial court was of the view that only on
the basis that civil dispute is pending, no benefit can be given to
the accused by holding that they have been falsely implicated in
the case. The learned trial court found that the prosecution was
very much able to substantiate its case that in the midnight,
accused persons came with another three unknown persons
and caused assault upon the informant and it rejected the
argument that there is no independent witness on the ground
that it is quite possible in the mid-night that when everybody
was sleeping, there is no question of availability of independent
witness. The learned trial court held that the prosecution has
been able to prove its case against the accused that in
furtherance of common intention they caused hurt to Ganesh
Prasad by knife due to which he sustained blooding injury and
held the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324/34 of Indian Penal Code.
29. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court
refused to give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and
Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure considering the
manner of offence and convicted and sentenced them as
aforesaid.
30. Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2012 was filed by Haridwar
Prasad Bhagat and Ajay Kumar Bhagat and Cr. Appeal No. 45
of 2012 was filed by Bijay Kumar Bhagat. Both criminal appeals
were tagged and decided by the learned appellate court below
vide impugned judgment dated 30.07.2013.
31. The learned lower appellate court also considered the
entire evidences on record and recorded that there appears to
be land dispute between the parties several years prior to the
alleged occurrence and it was a reason behind the said
occurrence that in the fateful night, the convicts along with
three associates, went to the house of the informant and gave
knife blow on the person of the informant who sustained injury
in his hand. P.W.-5 to P.W.-10 are said to be independent and
natural witnesses of the occurrence who did not support the
prosecution case, rather turned hostile. The learned lower
appellate court held that there is common tendency of outsiders
not to get themselves involved in criminal cases and it was
quite natural that no independent witness had come to assist
the prosecution. The learned lower appellate court was of the
view that even with regard to interested witnesses being close
relatives, it is the duty of the court to separate the truth from
falsehood and the evidence is required to be read as a whole
and once impression regarding truth of the occurrence is found,
it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence which is required to be
evaluated as a whole. The learned lower appellate court
ultimately recorded in its finding at Para-22 of the appellate
court judgment which reads as follows:
"22. It is pertinent to mention here that after careful and
caution scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find ring of truth
in the evidence of P.W. 4 and 11 (informant), which stands
materially corroborated by the medical evidence (P.W. 13) read
with Ext.- 3, injury report of informant. Therefore, non-
examination of any other independent witnesses in the facts
and circumstances of the case, cannot be viewed as a lacuna of
the prosecution case. It is true that there is some contradictions
in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 but the said
contradictions creeping in their evidence is a very trivial
nature not touching the core and spectrum of the prosecution
case. Therefore, the evidence of informant read with P.W. 1
and 4 cannot be brushed aside in this case on this score. It is
true that information given about the occurrence to the P.S.
for which an entry was made in station diary has not been
produced in court. It is admitted by the I.O that person who
have given information did not disclose his name, therefore,
under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that said
telephonic information was given by the informant and it
should be treated as F.I.R. Therefore, I find and hold that the
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants
has got no leg to stand and the case law referred to above is not
applicable in this case in the facts and circumstances of the
case. I further find and hold that materials on record clearly
established the guilt of the appellants. The learned J.M has
meticulously considered the evidence on record in proper
perspective and has rightly come to the guilt of the appellants.
Therefore, I see no irregularity or any infirmity in the
impugned judgment requiring an interference therein."
32. This Court finds that the learned courts below have
considered the materials on record and have come to a
concurrent finding of facts and found the petitioners guilty of
the alleged offences. Although, it has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that there are certain
contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses,
but no such material contradiction has been pointed out which
may call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
33. So far as contradiction between the evidence of P.W-1 and
P.W-11 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner s
is concerned the same has no bearing because there is no
relevance of the fact as to who made the provocative call for
assault and whether any one of the accused persons ever made
such a call or not.
34. So far as the arguments regarding lack of motive is
concerned, this Court finds that the present FIR was filed on
30.08.2005 and prior to the present case, on 04.08.2005 another
criminal case was filed by the informant-party against the
convicts of the present case under Sections 467, 468, 472, 471,
419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly on the date
of occurrence of the present case, the case filed on 04.08.2005 by
the informant party was pending. Acquittal of the petitioners
vide judgment dated 14.07.2017 in the case filed by the
informant party on 04.08.2005 has no bearing in the present case
and the same merely reflects that the parties were in litigating
terms on the date of the occurrence of the present case. In such
circumstances, when a criminal case was already filed by the
informant party against the convicts of the present case, it
cannot be said that there is no motive for the petitioners to
assault the informant-party. Thus, the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that there is no motive in the present
case as the Deputy Commissioner had decided one matter
relating to land in favour of the petitioner, is devoid of any
merits. The Deputy Commissioner decided the case vide order
dated 19.11.2005 passed in M.R.P. Case No. 09 of 1998 and 10 of
1998, the certified copy of which was marked as Exhibit-B and
certainly the decision was much after the institution of the FIR
in the present case. Otherwise also, there is no scope for
reappreciation of materials on record in revisional jurisdiction
in absence of any perversity.
35. So far as the arguments regarding non-recovery of the
weapons including knife, firearm, lathi and danda etc. are
concerned, the same has no bearing in the case as the accused
had run away from the place of occurrence.
36. So far as the arguments regarding non-exhibit of station
diary entry and not exhibiting the blood-stained clothes are
concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the
aforesaid argument of the petitioners amounts of inviting this
court for reappreciation of the evidences on record in revisional
jurisdiction which is not permissible in law in absence of any
perversity. Even if, the said argument is taken on its face value,
the same is not material enough to render the concurrent
findings of the learned court below perverse calling for any
interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned courts below
have passed well-reasoned judgements considering every
aspect and arguments of the petitioners and no such arguments
have been advanced which may call for any reappreciation of
evidence in revisional jurisdiction.
37. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
has relied upon the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parvat Singh and Other
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.374 of
2020 to submit that in case of material contradictions/omission
and improvements in the statement of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the accused are entitled to be given
benefit of doubt. This Court finds that in the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conviction was based on the
evidence of sole eye-witness and the accused were convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the
High Court while dismissing the appeal had not properly
appreciated the fact that the evidences of the sole eye-witness
was full of material contradictions and improvements and that
the sole eye-witness had for the first time in the court stated
that the two accused caught hold the victim and killed the
deceased by axe injury over his neck and further there was no
recovery of any torch from the place of incident.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence/deposition
of the sole witness can be relied upon provided it is found to be
trustworthy and reliable and there are no material
contradictions and/or omissions and/or improvements in the
case of prosecution. Upon appreciating the evidence on record,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the evidence of the sole
witness, on which the conviction was based, was full of
material contradictions, omissions and improvements. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the sole eye witness of the
said case never made statement under Section 161 that two
accused caught hold of the deceased but stated that they told to
run away as other persons had woken up. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also found that the appellants before the High
Court was not right in relying upon the statement under
Section 161 wherein the appellants were said to be holding
lathis, although the informant had not stated anything before
the court that the appellants were holding lathi. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that the evidence of the sole eye-witness
was reliable only against one of the convicts and there was
recovery of the arms also which was used for commission of
offence, but so far as others were concerned, they were found
entitled to benefit of doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also
considered that the circumstance that there was prior enmity of
the sole eye-witness with the appellants before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
This Court finds that the said judgement does not apply to the
facts of the present case as the petitioner has not been able to
point out any material contradictions or material omissions in
the evidences of the witnesses which have been carefully
scrutinised by the learned courts below.
38. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that
there is no scope to interfere with the judgement of conviction
of the three convicts in revisional jurisdiction. However, so far
as the point of sentence is concerned, the same requires
consideration.
39. The learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal
and upheld the conviction, but there is no discussion made by
the learned lower appellate court on the point of sentence.
40. This Court finds that it is the admitted case that there was
land dispute between the parties and so far as the present
petitioners are concerned, no criminal antecedent has been put
on record. Further, Bijay Kumar Bhagat was 52 years of age on
31.08.2012 and Ajay Kumar Bhagat was 50 years of age on that
day i.e. date of conviction and accordingly, their present age is
about 60 years and 58 years respectively.
41. This Court also finds that the incident is of the year 2005
and the petitioners have faced the rigorous of criminal case
right from 2005. The informant of the case who is the victim,
has suffered simple injuries, although one injury is by a sharp
cutting weapon on the right palm, but this injury is also simple
in nature.
42. This Court also finds that the petitioners had surrendered
before the learned court below after the order of the appellate
court on 10.09.2013 and were enlarged on bail by this Court
vide order dated 20.09.2013. From perusal of the lower court
records, it appears that the petitioners had surrendered before
the learned court below on 14.09.2005. The petitioners remained
in custody only for a period of two days during trial and 10
days during pendency of instant criminal revision petitions.
43. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case particularly the fact that more than 15 years have elapsed
from the date of occurrence, this Court is of the view that ends
of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners
namely, Bijay Kumar Bhagat and Ajay Kumar Bhagat are
modified to some extent by imposing fine.
44. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners namely, Bijay
Kumar Bhagat and Ajay Kumar Bhagat are hereby reduced to a
period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 9,000/- each. The
entire fine amount is directed to be remitted to the informant of
the case upon due identification.
45. The aforesaid fine amounts are to be deposited before the
learned trial court within a period of three months from the
date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned
trial court failing which the petitioners would undergo the
sentence imposed by the learned court below.
46. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners on 27.01.2021 during the course of arguments, this
Court was informed that the convict namely, Haridwar Prasad
Bhagat (Petitioner No.1 in Cr. Rev. No. 796 of 2013) has died
during pendency of this criminal revision and the petitioners
namely, Bijay Kumar Bhagat and Ajay Kumar Bhagat are the
legal heirs and successors of Haridwar Prasad Bhagat.
47. Accordingly, the petitioners namely, Bijay Kumar Bhagat
and Ajay Kumar Bhagat are also directed to deposit an amount
of Rs. 1,000/- each against the fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by
the learned trial court upon the convict namely, Haridwar
Prasad Bhagat (since deceased) for the offence under Section
324/34 of Indian Penal Code within a period of three months
from today.
48. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings, modification in
sentence of the petitioners and directions, both the criminal
revision petitions are hereby disposed of.
49. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby
cancelled.
50. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
51. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of
as not pressed.
52. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
53. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
