Jharkhand High Court
Baldeo Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 866 of 2014
1. Baldeo Singh, son of Late Jagbandhu Singh
2. Basant Singh, son of Baldeo Singh ... ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Amicus Curiae
For Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 09.12.2020 Pronounced on 19.02.2021
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. This criminal revision petition has been directed against
the Judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal
Appeal No. 50 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned
appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial
court and dismissed the appeal.
4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against
the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
26.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Civil Courts, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 636 of 2004/ Trial No.
444 of 2009 (arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No. 60/2004 dated
30.08.2004) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were
convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code, for 15 days for the offence under
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and for 03 Years for the
offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
5. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the impugned judgements are perverse and
therefore, they call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
She submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgements,
it is apparent that there was land dispute between the parties
and it was the Petitioner No.1-Baldeo Singh who was claiming
the place of occurrence land. She further submitted that P.W.-1
has turned hostile and P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are interested
witnesses and there is no independent witness and no eye-
witness to the alleged occurrence. She also submitted that it was
mentioned in the fardbeyan that the petitioners were holding
lathi, but during evidence, it was stated that the petitioners
were holding spade, although neither any spade was produced
during trial, nor any sharp cutting injury was found on the
person of the Informant-victim as per the injury report
prepared by the doctor.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the X-
Ray plate has been marked as an exhibit with objection and on
the basis of the same, it has been recorded that the victim had
suffered the fracture injury, but the concerned radiologist has
not been examined to prove the fracture injury and accordingly,
the finding of the learned courts below that the victim had
suffered fracture (grievous injury) is not sustainable in the eyes
of law.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that
without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions and considering
the facts that the incident is of the year 2004 and the petitioners
have already remained in custody for a period of 01 month 25
days from 24.11.2009 to 17.01.2010 during trial and appeal and
for a period of 01 month 09 days from 04.02.2015 to at least till
12.03.2015 when this criminal revision was admitted and they
were directed to be released on bail i.e. at least for a total period
of 03 months 04 days and they do not have any criminal
antecedent, some sympathetic view may be taken and sentences
of the petitioners may be modified to some extent.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
8. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that consistent
findings have been recorded by both the learned courts below.
She further submitted that so far as the X-Ray plate is
concerned, the same has been exhibited, though with objection
and the expert witness i.e. the doctor has been examined on
behalf of the prosecution. She submitted that the fact regarding
the fracture of the victim has come in deposition of the doctor
and therefore, non-examination of the radiologist is not fatal to
the prosecution case.
9. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that although there
was land dispute between the parties, the same by itself is not
sufficient for acquittal of the petitioners as the basic ingredients
for the alleged offences stand satisfied against the petitioners.
She also submitted that merely because there is no independent
witness and no eye-witness to the occurrence, the same is not
sufficient to acquit the petitioners in view of the fact that there
are other witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution
case and they were fully cross-examined by the defence.
10. However, the learned A.P.P. for the State did not dispute
the fact that year of incident is 2004 and that the petitioners
have remained in custody for more than three months and also
the fact that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed
for the alleged offences. She also did not dispute the fact that
the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case as
per the impugned judgements.
Findings of this Court
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower
court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution
case is based on the written report of the Informant namely,
Lotho Manjhi lodged on 30.08.2004 before the Officer-in-charge,
Nimdih P.S. alleging inter-alia that on 30.08.2004 at about
08:00 A.M., the Informant was grazing his cattle outside the
village on a fallow field and in the meantime, Baldeo Singh and
his son Basant Singh (petitioners herein) armed with lathi came
there and dared him as to how he was grazing his cattle and
abused him. Both the accused persons assaulted the informant
giving 4-5 lathi blows causing lacerated injuries near the elbow
of his right arm and on his both thighs. The petitioners sighted
the villages coming there on hearing hulla and fled away giving
threats to the informant.
12. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered
as Nimdih P.S. Case No. 60/2004 dated 30.08.2004 under
Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34 of the Indian
Penal Code against them and thereafter, on 01.12.2004,
cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the
same sections.
13. On 19.07.2005, the charges under SectionS 341, 323 and
325/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the
petitioners which were read over and explained to them in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 7
witnesses. P.W.-1 is Anand Mahato who has been declared
hostile by the prosecution, P.W.-2 is Sukhlal Manjhi, P.W.-3 is
Bhushan Manjhi, P.W.-4 is Guman Manjhi who is the scriber of
the written report, P.W.-5 is Lotho Manjhi who is the injured
Informant and victim of the case, P.W.-6 is Dr. Jujhar Manjhi
who had examined the injured Informant and P.W.-7 is
Dhananjay Singh who had taken over the investigation of the
case from the first Investigating Officer namely, S.I. Brij Bihari
Prasad Yadav upon his transfer and submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioners. The prosecution exhibited the written
report as Exhibit-1, injury reports of the Informant as Exhibit-2
and Exhibit-2/1 and the X-Ray Report as Exhibit-3 (with
objection). Endorsement on the written report as Exhibit-4 and
the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-5 have been exhibited by P.W-7.
15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements
of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on
19.02.2008 wherein they simply denied the incriminating
substances put to them and claimed to be innocent. The
petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in
their defence.
16. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered
the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and summarized its findings in Para-13 and 14
which read as under:
"13. From sifting of the evidence brought on the record it is
found that P.W.-3 Bhushan Manjhi and P.W.-4 Guman
Manjhi had seen the injury on the person of the informant
immediately after the incident. Both the witnesses have seen the
injury on the hand of the informant and P.W.-4 Guman
Manjhi had accompanied the informant to the police station and
had written the complaint on the dictation of the informant.
The written complaint has been exhibited as Ext.-1 and he has
admitted in his cross-examination that there was previous
enmity between the parties with regard to the place where the
informant was grazing his cattle. P.W.-5 Lotho Manjhi is the
informant himself and has stated that he had received injury on
his right wrist and thigh upon being assaulted by the accused
persons and the same injury has been examined by the doctor
who has been examined as P.W.-6. In the opinion of the doctor
there was a commuted fracture on the digital end of shaft of the
right ulna of the informant which was grievous in nature.
14. Thus from the evidence brought on the record it is found
that the injury stated in the FIR is corroborated by the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses including informant and doctor.
The defence has not been able to bring anything in the cross-
examination of the witnesses to create a doubt over their
authenticity. All prosecution witnesses have withstood the test
of cross-examination and accordingly the prosecution has been
able to bring home the charges against the accused persons
beyond all reasonable doubts."
17. The learned appellate court also considered and
discussed the prosecution evidences in detail and also
considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners
and summarized its findings in Para-11 of its judgment. The
learned appellate court recorded that it is established from the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there is consistency
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the
offence committed by the petitioners and they have consistently
supported the prosecution story and there is no such material
contradiction in the evidences on record and there is nothing on
record to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. It has also been recorded by the learned
appellate court that although the witnesses are relatives of the
Informant / injured, but found their evidences reliable and
recorded that the medical evidence has also supported the oral
evidences of the prosecution witnesses. The learned appellate
court also found that although no eye witness and no
independent witness has been produced on behalf of the
prosecution and the main Investigating Officer has also not
been examined, even then the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses have fully established the place of occurrence and
pendency of civil dispute relating to the place of occurrence
land between both the parties also supports the prosecution
case and does not support their defence that they have been
falsely implicated in the case. The learned appellate court found
that the learned trial court has properly scrutinized the
evidences of prosecution witnesses and has held the petitioners
guilty and convicted them under Sections 323, 325 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them appropriately.
18. This Court finds that P.W.-5 is the injured Informant and
victim of the case and he has fully supported his version stated
in his written report. He deposed that the occurrence took place
2 - 2 ½ years ago in the month of Bhado on Monday at about
08:00 A.M. and he was grazing his cattle on the ridge. In the
meantime, the petitioners came there and asked him not to
graze cattle there and they claimed the land to be their own.
Thereafter, a quarrel took place and the petitioners assaulted
him. He further deposed that he received injuries on his right
wrist and thighs and when he raised alarm, villagers came there
and rescued him. He further deposed that Guman Manjhi had
also accompanied him to the police station and as per his
dictation, he had written the report on which he had put his
thumb impression. This witness identified the Petitioner No.2
in court and claimed to identify the other. In cross-examination,
P.W.-5 admitted that both the parties are relatives and a civil
case is pending between them relating to the place of
occurrence land for title and possession. He further admitted
that none was present at the place of occurrence when he had
gone to graze cattle. He further deposed that Anant Mahto and
Kaviraj Mahto were present nearby and had seen the assault on
the victim and the petitioners had assaulted him.
19. This Court further finds that P.W.-6 is the doctor who had
examined the injured Informant on 30.08.2004 and had found
the following injuries: (1) One bruise with swelling of red
colour over right thigh and lateral part 3" X 2" and (2) one
lacerated wound of red colour with peripheral swelling over
right forearm 2" X 1" X ½ " above the wrist, medial part, skin
deep. This witness further deposed that the above injuries are
caused by hard and blunt substance within 24-hour duration.
He opined that the Injury No.1 is simple in nature and the
Injury No.2 was reserved for want of X-Ray . The X-ray Report
showed commuted fracture on the digital end of the shaft of
right ulna and hence, the Injury No.2 was opined as grievous in
nature. He exhibited the Injury Reports as Exhibits-2 and 2/1
respectively and the X-Ray Plate as Exhibit-3.
20. This Court finds that P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 had seen the
injuries on the person of the Informant and P.W.-4 had also
accompanied the Informant to the police station and had
recorded the written report as dictated by the informant. P.W.-7
is the second investigating officer of the case who had
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and he has
proved the endorsement on the written report as Exhibit-4 and
the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-5.
21. This Court is of the view that P.W.-5 (Informant) has fully
supported his version stated in the F.I.R. and has proved the
place, date, time and the manner of the occurrence. This Court
also finds that P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-6 as well as the Injury
Reports and the X-Ray Plate of the Informant have fully
corroborated the prosecution case on the point of injuries
received by the Informant at the hands of the petitioners. The
informant has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence
and his evidence remained consistent on the point of his
injuries and also the occurrence.
22. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given
consistent and concurrent finding of facts after properly
considering the evidences available on record including the
medical evidences.
23. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope
for re-appreciation of evidences and for any interference in
revisional jurisdiction and the contradictions as pointed out by
the learned amicus curiae are not material contradictions to
draw any conclusion of illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners
passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned
appellate court is hereby upheld.
24. So far as the sentences of the petitioners are concerned,
this Court finds that both the petitioners have been sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for 15 days for the
offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and for 03
Years for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal
Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
25. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court find that both the parties were in litigating terms with
regard to the place of occurrence land and the occurrence had
arisen out of land dispute between them. This Court also finds
that the FIR is of the year 2004 and more than 16 years have
already elapsed. Accordingly, considering the fact that the
petitioners have faced the rigours of the trial for 16 years and
the present case is their first offence, this Court is of the view
that ends of justice would be served, if their sentences are
modified to some extent.
26. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and also the
facts that the Petitioner No.1-Baldeo Singh has already
remained in custody for some period during trial and appeal
and for a period of 01 month 09 days from 04.02.2015 to at least
till 12.03.2015 during pendency of this criminal revision and
that he is aged about 71 Years at present, his sentences for the
offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code
are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him
with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
27. So far as the sentence of the Petitioner No.2-Basant Singh
is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, his sentence for the offence under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code is hereby reduced to Simple Imprisonment
for six months with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
This Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence of the
Petitioner No.2-Basant Singh for the offences under Sections 323
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences of the
Petitioner No.2 shall run concurrently and the period of
custody already undergone by him during trial, appeal and also
during pendency of this criminal revision shall be set off in
terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
28. The Petitioners are directed to deposit the aforesaid fine
amount of Rs.10,000/- each before the learned trial court within
a period of two months from the date of communication of a
copy of this Judgment to the learned trial court and the fine
amount so deposited by them is directed to be remitted to the
informant-victim of the case after due identification. It is also
directed that in case the fine amount is not deposited within the
stipulated time frame, the Petitioners would serve the sentences
as imposed by the learned trial court.
29. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, directions
and modification in sentences of the petitioners, this criminal
revision application is hereby disposed of.
30. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
31. Bail bond furnished by the Petitioner No.2 is cancelled.
The bailors of Petitioner No. 1 would be discharged of their
liability under the bail bond upon deposit of the fine amount as
mentioned above.
32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
Appreciation for Amicus Curiae and Payment:
33. Before parting, this Court observes that vide order
dated 03.09.2020, Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate was
appointed as an amicus in this case by this Court. I record my
appreciation for the valuable assistance accorded by the learned
Amicus Curiae in final disposal of this case. The Secretary,
Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to
ensure that the legal remuneration of the learned Amicus
Curiae is duly paid to her within a period of 4 weeks upon
submission of bills by her.
34. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
35. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
