Md. Razi And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2219 Jhar

                                        1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              Cr. Revision No. 1087 of 2013

              Md. Razi and others         ...     ...     ...     Petitioners
                                   Versus
          The State of Jharkhand and another ...        ...     Opp. Parties
                                    ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

          For the Petitioners      : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate
                                     Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
          For the Opp. Party       : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.

                              Through Video Conferencing

9/06.7.2021

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 148,323,447,379 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the sentence with modification and acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that the exhibits which were filed by the complainant regarding the sale deed and title suit are subject matter of second appeal pending before this court and there is land dispute between the complainant and the present petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W. 2 some construction work was going on in the house and for which he was brining mud on the spot, but it cannot be said that the complainant was living in the said house. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complaint was filed without any appropriate affidavit and which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 287 . Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no evidence that the hurt was caused by assault and accordingly the basic ingredient for offence under Section 323 IPC is also not satisfied. He submits that there is no medical report

or injury report on record. However, the learned counsel has also submitted that considering the nature of dispute between the parties and the fact that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, the learned court below ought to have considered to give relief to the petitioners under Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below. Learned counsel has further submitted that present offence is the first offence and the petitioners had surrendered during the pendency of this case on 07.12.2013 and they were granted bail this court vide order dated 13.12.2013 and a few days must have been taken for furnishing the bail bonds.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the allegation regarding assault has been specifically made by the complainant of the case which was corroborated by the independent witnesses P.W. 2. Learned counsel has also submitted that merely because there is land dispute, the same does not mean that no criminality is involved in the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

6. Arguments concluded.

7. Post this case for judgment on 09.08.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/