Jharkhand High Court
Md. Latifur Rahman vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1075 of 2013
Md. Latifur Rahman, Azhar @ Shahroz, son of Azharul Islam
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. ...... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Md. Imtiaz Khan, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
10/19.01.2021 Heard Md. Imtiaz Khan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
were altogether 4 accused in the present case and out of them,
only the petitioner was a juvenile and accordingly his case was
taken up by Juvenile Justice Board. He further submits that so
far as other accused are concerned, they were tried by regular
court and they have been acquitted and they have been given
the benefit of doubt. He has referred to the judgment of
acquittal of the other 3 co-accused as contained in Annexure 1.
Learned counsel further submits that so far as the petitioner is
concerned, no specific allegation has been leveled against the
petitioner. Learned counsel has further referred to the evidence
of C.W. 3 to submit that C.W 3 has not even specifically named
the petitioner in the commission of offence. Learned counsel
further refers to para 17 of the appellate court judgment to
submit that the appellate court while sustaining the conviction
of the petitioner has found that it is true that the acquisition has
not been explained read with Section 34 of I.P.C, but from the
material on record, it is apparent that all the accused persons
including the appellant had attacked the complainant and his
brother conjointly and made entry in the house also, and
thereafter ran away from there conjointly. The learned counsel
submits that the person with whom the petitioner was said to
have acted conjointly has already been acquitted by the learned
trial court as per Annexure - 1. Learned counsel submits that in
such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to benefit of
doubt and accordingly the petitioner may be acquitted.
4. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was a
counter - case arising out of the same incident and the
complainant of the present case namely Mohammad
Amaduddin Ata has been convicted in the counter case.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that other
three co-accused have been acquitted in criminal trial and so far
as present petitioner is concerned, no specific allegation as such
has been leveled against the present petitioner. Learned counsel
also does not dispute the fact that C.W.3 has not specifically
taken the name of the petitioner in the commission of offence.
Learned counsel further does not dispute the fact that the
complainant of the present case has been convicted in the
counter case arising of the same incident.
6. Arguments concluded.
7. Post this case on 28.01.2021 for 'Judgment'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
