Jharkhand High Court
Binay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1120 of 2013
1. Binay Singh
2. Surendra Singh
3. Kamdeo Singh
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are sons of Late Parasnath Singh
4. Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh
5. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh
Both Petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are sons of Sri Binay Singh
6. Harsbardhan Singh son of Sri Vijay Singh
All are residents of Village- Jhikatiya, P.O. and police station-
Hunterganj, District-Chatra.
... ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For Opp. Party-State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
JUDGMENT
08/C.A.V. on 05.01.2021 Pronounced on 15.01.2021
Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the
Judgment dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No.
45/2012, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court
upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147,
341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned
trial court and set aside the sentence of the petitioners and
directed the learned trial court to release the petitioners on
furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each of the
same amount for two years under Section 4 of the Probation of
the Offenders Act, 1958 and the petitioners were further
directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon
during such period as the learned trial court may direct and in
the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour and
allowed the appeal partly.
4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the
Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
28.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division)-
V, Chatra in G.R. Case No. 678 of 2006 / Tr. Case No. 441/2012
(arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.80/2006 dated
17.10.2006) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held
guilty and convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 341
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted for
alleged offence under Sections 337 and 504 of Indian Penal
Code.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that although the learned appellate court has given the benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, but the
conviction by itself is a stigma upon the petitioners and
accordingly, the case may be decided on merits.
6. Learned counsel submitted that so far as conviction of the
petitioners are concerned, concurrent findings have been
recorded by the learned courts below, but the learned courts
below have failed to consider that arising out of same incident,
a counter case being Hunterganj P.S. Case No.79 of 2006 dated
17.10.2006 was filed in which Charge-sheet No.137 of 2008
dated 23.11.2008 was submitted which has been exhibited in
the present case as Exhibit-A and the occurrence had arisen
out of land dispute between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
although there were number of persons who were said to have
witnessed the occurrence, but only four prosecution witnesses
have been examined and out of them, two are interested and
related witnesses and the third one has not stated anything
serious against the petitioners and although P.W.-4 is an
independent witness, but she has stated in cross-examination
that she had not seen the occurrence. He also submitted that
neither the Investigating Officer of the case has been
examined, nor any injury report has been brought on record
from the side of the prosecution. He submitted that
considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the judgment
of conviction is perverse and the impugned judgments are fit
to be set aside and accordingly, the petitioners should be given
the benefit of doubt.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, if this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the judgments of conviction, the
petitioners shall furnish the required bonds as directed by the
learned appellate court within a stipulated timeframe as may
be directed by this Court.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
9. Learned counsel for the Opposite-Party-State submitted that
concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the learned
courts below and there is no scope of re-appreciation of the
evidences for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He further
submitted that only a charge-sheet was submitted in the
counter case and ultimately what happened has not been
brought on record and the same is also not available in the
records of the present case. He further submitted that
considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, no
interference is called for in the present case.
Findings of this Court
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the impugned judgments and the lower court records
of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based
on the written report dated 17.10.2006 submitted by the
informant, namely, Meena Devi (P.W.-1) before the Officer-in-
charge, Hunterganj alleging inter-alia that election for the post
of Aganbari Sevika through Gram Sabha was fixed on
17.10.2006 at about 2:00 P.M. in which the Informant was an
applicant and all the applicants had reached Jhikatiya School
for interview. Election was held on the basis of seniority list.
Thereafter, at 04:00 P.M., they proceeded for going to her
temporary house Godobar. At some distance, Vijay Singh,
Harshbardhan Singh, Vinay Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh,
Manoj Singh, Surendra Singh and Kamdeo Singh were present
at the shop of Surendra Singh. They told her that she was
forbidden to enter in Jhikatiya village since she had no
property there and they surrounded them and assaulted the
informant and others by lathi, fists and slaps and snatched
away her golden chain of 2½ bhar from her neck and the Titan
watch worth Rs. 2,000/- from her husband and they could not
resist and sustained injuries. It was further alleged that earlier
in the year 2001 also, the accused persons had beaten the
informant and, in that case, they were found guilty. The
Informant claimed that at the time of the occurrence, Lulu
Singh son of Madan Sharma, Dhiraj Singh son of Late Sudhir
Singh, Niraj Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Akshay Singh, Ashok Singh,
Pramod Singh and Ganga Singh were present who had seen
the occurrence. The accused persons also threatened to kill the
informant alongwith her husband and son, if she complains.
The Informant was also threatened during her treatment that
her family shall be burnt by sprinkling petrol. She further
alleged that they were assaulted with an intention to kill them.
11. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as
Hunterganj P.S. Case No.80/2006 dated 17.10.2006 under
Sections 147, 149, 323, 307, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioners and after completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them under
sections 147, 323, 341, 337 and 504 of IPC and thereafter, on
08.10.2007, cognizance of the offence was taken against them
under the same sections.
12. On 10.09.2008, the substance of accusation for the offences
under Sections 147, 323, 341, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code was explained to the petitioners in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
13. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 04
witnesses to prove the charges. P.W.-1 is Meena Devi who is
injured informant of the case, P.W.-2 is Raja Singh who is the
husband of the Informant, P.W.-3 is Ranjit Murari who is the
son of the Informant and P.W.-4 is Karam Devi who is an
independent witness, but she is a hearsay witness. The
prosecution exhibited the written report as Exhibit-1.
14. On 27.07.2012, the statements of the petitioners were recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they simply denied the
incriminating substances put to them and claimed to be
innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral evidence,
but filed a certified copy of Charge-sheet No. 137/2008 dated
23.11.2008 in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.79 of
2006 dated 17.10.2006 in their defence which was marked as
Exhibit-A in which Vinay Singh is the informant and Sudhir
Singh, Surendra Singh, Vinay Singh and his brothers were
injured.
15. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral
and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and the documentary evidence filed on behalf of
the petitioners including the plea that a counter case was also
filed, Doctor and Investigating Officer of the case were not
examined, alleged contradiction in evidence and the
independent witness has not seen the occurrence and recorded
its findings in Para-10 and acquitted the accused for offence
u/s 337 and 504 of IPC which reads as under:
"10. ...............................................................................
It appears from the testimony of P.W.-1, 2 and 3 that on
17.10.2006 at about 4:00 P.M., all accused persons have
assaulted informant, her husband and her son. These witnesses
are victim of this case. It also appears from the testimony of
witnesses that accused persons assaulted by lathi and fists and
it is also clear from the testimony of these witnesses that there
are contradiction with Ext.-2 (written report). In written
report, informant has not written that the accused persons
have assaulted by brick and stone. It also appears from the
testimonial of these three witnesses that accused persons did
not use any abusing language against any victim. Any
abusing word was not deposed by any witness. It also appears
from testimony of all witnesses that accused Vinay Singh has
also lodged a case against informant and her family member.
Exhibit-A is certified copy of charge-sheet of Hunterganj P.S.
Case No.79 of 2006 which was lodged by accused Vinay Singh
against informant and others for this occurrence. It also
appears from the testimony of P.W.-1, 2 and 3 that the accused
persons have restrained to informant, her husband and her son
and assaulted them by means of lathi and fist. It also appears
from the testimony of P.W.-4 that accused persons assaulted
Raja Babu and Ranjeet Singh, but this witness is not eye
witness. She heard about the occurrence. This witness is
hearsay witness. Doctor and I.O. were not examined in this
case. Injury report was not proved. It is very clear from the
testimony of witnesses that all accused persons are members of
unlawful assembly and offence was done by accused persons in
furtherance of common object. Defence could not extract any
material in cross-examination to discredit the evidence of
witnesses regarding the offence u/s 147, 341, 323 IPC. I find
merit in the argument of defence advanced on the point of only
u/s 337 and 504 of IPC and also find that there is no merit in
contention of defence advanced on point of U/s 147, 341, 323
of IPC. I find sufficient evidence are available on record to find
and hold guilty U/s. 147, 323, 341 of IPC against all accused
persons."
16. The learned appellate court also discussed the prosecution
evidences and the documentary evidence of the petitioners
and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioners and summarized its findings in Para-16 of the
judgment which reads as under:
"16. ...............................................................................
On close scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, I also find that the accused-appellants after having
formed an unlawful assembly having common object to beat
the Informant and her family members i.e. husband and son
assaulted them and voluntarily caused simple injuries. Further
it also appears from the testimony of prosecution witnesses
that the accused-appellants also wrongfully restrained the
informant, her husband and son. The statement of the
informant is corroborated by the testimony of further
witnesses i.e. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 regarding the time, place and
manner of occurrence to the extent the learned lower court has
believed these witnesses. Therefore, the finding of the learned
lower court holding the accused-appellants guilty under
Sections 147, 341 and 323 of I.P.C. is upheld."
17. From perusal of Para-5 of the judgment passed by the learned
appellate court, it transpires that vide Judgment dated 01.07.2013
passed in G.R. No. 677 of 2006 / T.R. No. 39 of 2013 arising out of
the counter case i.e. Hunterganj P.S. Case No.79 of 2006 dated
17.10.2006, Meena Devi, Raja Singh and Ranjeet Murari were
convicted under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and they were given benefit under the Probation of the
Offenders Act and were released after due admonition.
18. This Court finds that P.W.-1 is the Informant of the case and she
deposed that the occurrence is of 17.10.2006. On that day, she had
gone to Jhiktiya School for the election of Anganbari Sewika.
When she was returning at 04:00 P.M. alongwith her husband
and son and reached near the shop of Surendra Singh, then Uday
Singh, Vijay Singh came there abusing her and shouted to kill her
saying that he had forbidden her to come to Jhiktiya school, even
then she entered in the village. She further deposed that Vijay
Singh, Vinay Singh, Kamdeo Singh, Surendra Singh,
Harshbardhan Singh, Sudhir Singh and Manoj Singh armed with
lathi and danda surrounded them and assaulted her, her husband
and son. Harshbardhan Singh thrashed her husband and climbed
on his chest and pressed his neck and snatched away his titan
watch from his wrist. Surendra Singh thrashed her and pressed
her neck and snatched away her golden chain weighing 2½ bhar.
She further stated that Lallu Singh, Dhiraj Singh, Neeraj Singh,
Niranjan Singh, Dilip Singh, Guddu Singh, Awadhesh Singh,
Siyaram Singh and Ravi Singh had seen the occurrence and saved
their lives. She stated the reason behind the occurrence that she is
the only daughter of her parents and is the sole heir of their
property and the accused wanted to drive her away and earlier
also, they had committed incident and they were convicted. After
the occurrence, the Informant went to police station alongwith
her husband and son and submitted the written report. She
exhibited the written report as Exhibit-1. She identified the
petitioners in court. In cross-examination, she admitted that
Jhiktiya is her maike and her matrimonial house is in Noubatpur,
Patna. The house of Vinay Singh and Vijay Singh are separate
and they are her cousin brothers. Her father is alive and Vijay
Sing looks after the agriculture of her father and Vinay Singh has
filed a case against her and her husband and son.
19. This Court finds that no material facts have been taken on behalf
of the petitioners to discredit the testimony the informant (P.W.-
1) who has fully supported her version stated in her written
report and therefore, her evidence is fully trustworthy and
reliable. This Court further finds that P.W.-2 is the husband of the
Informant and P.W.-3 is the son of the Informant and both were
present at the place of occurrence, at the time of the occurrence
and both have corroborated the evidence of the Informant.
20. This Court is of the considered view that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 have proved the place, date, time and the manner of the
occurrence and they have also fully corroborated the prosecution
case on the points of forming unlawful assembly by the
petitioners and restraining the Informant and her husband and
son and assaulting them. All the three aforesaid prosecution
witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence
and their evidences remained consistent regarding the
occurrence. Therefore, non-examination of the Investigating
Officer and the Doctor does not affect the prosecution case in any
way.
21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses
and have recorded consistent and concurrent finding of facts after
properly considering the evidences available on record and have
found sufficient evidence for conviction of the petitioners under
Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
22. So far as the plea regarding counter case is concerned, this Court
finds that at the stage of trial only charge-sheet of the counter
case was filed by the accused being Exhibit-A and at the stage of
appeal, a certified copy of the judgment convicting Meena Devi,
Raja Singh and Ranjit Murari (P.Ws.-1, 2 and 3 respectively of the
present case) under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of IPC was filed.
This Court finds that although it was the specific case of the
defence that there was case and counter case between the parties
arising out of same incident, but no steps were taken to
amalgamate two cases. Further no explanation was given by the
petitioners in connection with the incident in their statements
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in fact they were in a
state of complete denial. Further, the petitioners did not lead any
defence evidence, but only exhibited the charge-sheet in the
counter case as Exhibit-A. This Court is of the considered view
that merely because there is case and counter case between the
parties in connection with the same incident and the informant
party has been convicted in the counter case filed by the
petitioners, the same is not sufficient to acquit the petitioners or
to give any benefit of doubt to the petitioners in the present case.
This Court also finds that the learned lower appellate court has
taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
case and has modified the sentence of the petitioners and directed
for their release on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two
sureties each of the same amount for two years under Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court is of the
considered view that there is no scope for re-appreciation of
evidences on record and for coming to a different finding when
the learned courts below have returned consistent finding of facts
by well-reasoned judgments after appreciating the materials on
record. Merely because the Investigating Officer of the case and
the Doctor have not been examined, the same is not a ground to
create any doubt in the prosecution case and no argument, as
such, has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners as to why
they were prejudiced by non-examination of the Investigating
Officer of the case and non-examination of the Doctor. This Court
also finds that the victims of the occurrence themselves have
deposed before the learned court below and the learned courts
below have found that their evidence are consistent and they
have also been fully cross-examined by the defence.
23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court finds that both the learned courts below have passed well-
reasoned judgments considering every aspect of the matter and
every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
24. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for re-
appreciation of evidences for any interference in revisional
jurisdiction and the points raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are not material points to draw any conclusion of
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. This Court
does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgments calling for any interference under revisional
jurisdiction.
25. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is
hereby affirmed and the present criminal revision petition is
hereby dismissed.
26. The interim order dated 13.12.2013 passed by this Court with
regard to exemption of the petitioners from executing the
probation bonds as directed by the learned appellate court is
hereby vacated.
27. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are directed to
execute probation bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the
same amount each for a period of two years under Section 4 of
the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 within 3 months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the learned trial court
and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during
such period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good
behaviour.
28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed as not
pressed.
29. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the
learned court concerned.
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court
below through 'FAX/e-mail'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/
