Gullu Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 33 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                  Criminal Revision No.1054 of 2013

          1. Gullu Mahato, son of late Jhunu Mahato
          2. Bajendra Mahto, son of Gullu Mahato
                                                 ...       ...      Petitioners
                                 Versus
          The State of Jharkhand               ......        Opposite Party
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Ms. Riya Narain, Amicus For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Adv.

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

14/05.01.2021 Heard Ms. Riya Narain, learned Amicus appointed by this Court on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.

3. The learned Amicus has submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are accordingly fit to be set. She submits that the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. She submits that P.W.1 had stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, the victim was lying injured on the floor and accordingly, P.W. 1 had not seen the occurrence and he arrived at the place of occurrence subsequently. She further submits that P.W. 3 is an interested witness and is the brother of the victim. She submits that P.W. 5 is the Doctor, who had examined the informant/victim and has deposed that the injury was simple and she also submits that no X-ray report was not exhibited before the learned court below. She also submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in view of the fact that there is long standing enmity between the accused and the informant party.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State, on the other hand, has submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and the basic ingredients for convicting the petitioners

have been satisfied. He submits that no interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the victim of the incident is the informant of the case, who has been examined before the learned court below and has been fully cross - examined and he has fully supported the prosecution case and his evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, who has stated that there was sharp cutting injury. The learned counsel submits that he has filed a counter-affidavit in the present case indicating that the petitioners have already served the sentence. The learned counsel submits that so far as the conviction is concerned, no interference is called for.

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Post this case on 13.01.2021 for judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/