Jharkhand High Court
Binay Singh And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2013
Binay Singh and Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Adv.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
07/05.01.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that so far as
conviction of the petitioners are concerned, there are concurrent
findings by the learned courts below, but the learned courts
below have failed to consider that there was also a counter-case
filed arising out of same incident in connection with which
charge sheet no.137 of 2008 dated 23.11.2008 relating to
Hunterganj P.S. Case No.79 of 2006 dated 17.10.2006 was filed
and exhibited and there was land dispute between the parties
and accordingly, the petitioners should be given the benefit of
doubt. Learned counsel has also submitted that although there
were number of persons, who are said to have witnessed the
occurrence, but only four 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.
During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that though P.W. 4 is an independent
witness, but she has stated in cross examination that she had
not seen the occurrence. Learned counsel submits that
considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the judgment of
conviction is perverse and is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel
for the petitioners has further submitted that although the
learned appellate court had 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 and the petitioners are entitled to benefit of
doubt under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has 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. The learned counsel submits
that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, in case, 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 time
frame as may be directed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Jitendra Pandey, has
submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by
the learned courts below and there is no scope for interference
in the revisional jurisdiction. He has further submitted that only
a charge sheet was submitted in the counter case and ultimately
what happened has not been brought on record and it is also
not available in the present records of the case. He further
submits that considering the limited scope of revisional
jurisdiction, no interference is called for in the present case.
6. Arguments concluded. Post this case for judgment on
13.01.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
