Jagdish Singh Dixy @ Jagdish Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2089 Jhar

                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Cr. Revision No. 918 of 2013

           1.Jagdish Singh Dixy @ Jagdish Singh Dikshe son of Late Charan
           Singh, resident of Zone No. 9, Birsa Nagar, H. No. 5, P.O. Birsa
           Nagar, P.S. Birsa Nagar, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

         2.Dinesh Pandey son of Hari Nandan Pandey, resident of Balajee
         Nagar, Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur,
         District-Singhbhum East
         3. Ajit Kumar Chandel, son of Late Ramdas Chandel, resident of
         Kartik Nagar, Kharengajhar, Telco, P.O.-Telco, P.S. Telco,
         Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
         4. Gyan Sagar Prasad, son of Bhuj Prasad, resident of RD/10, K2/10,
         Telco, P.O.-Telco, P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
                                             ...     ...    ...     Petitioners
                                 Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                    ...    ...     Opp. Party
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

         For the Petitioners           : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party            : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

                           Through Video Conferencing


15/29.06.2021

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

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

3. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the legality/propriety or correctness of the judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 267 of 2009, whereby the order of conviction of the petitioners by the learned Trial Court for the offences under Sections 147,342,323,448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been upheld and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside. Further, the learned Appellate Court has modified the sentence of the petitioners by reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each under Sections 147/342/323/448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and a compensation of Rs. 5000/- each to be

given to the informant under Section 357(3) Cr. P.C. and in default further imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. The learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 342, 323, 448, 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced all the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the charges under Sections 147,385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment each for the charges under Sections 342,323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submission on behalf of petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.K. Sahani has confined his argument to the sentence imposed by the learned courts below. He further submits that though the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners under Sections 147/341/342/323/448/385/506 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted by the Appellate Court for the alleged offence under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the case is of the year 2001 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 15.09.2009 and at the time of conviction, the petitioner nos. 1,2,3,4 were of 50 years, 48 years, 40 years and 46 years of age respectively and accordingly their present age are about 62 years, 60 years, 51 years and 57 years respectively. He submits that they have faced the rigorous of criminal case for more than 20 years and accordingly some sympathetic view may be taken. He further submits that it was submitted before the learned Trial Court that there was no previous conviction of the petitioners.

Submission on behalf of Opposite Party-State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State while opposing the prayer on the other hand, has submitted that the Appellate Court had modified the sentence of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, though the petitioners were acquitted for offence under Section 385 of the IPC by the learned Appellate Court. He has also submitted that in view of concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 147, 342, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no perversity or

illegality, so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned. He further submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, the same may be coupled with imposition of fine.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going to the materials on record and the impugned judgments this court finds that as per the prosecution story on 11.04.2001 at about 8 A.M. the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 4 went to the house of the informant, the Executive Officer of the TTCL, Telco and asked him as to why he stopped the treatment of wife of petitioner No. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and Umesh Shankar Singh also entered into the house of the informant and began to assault the informant and also threatened to kill him. They dragged the informant out of his house and took him to the Hospital. It was alleged that in the hospital they demanded Rs. 5000/- from the informant for the treatment of wife of petitioner No. 4 otherwise they will continue to assault him. It was further case of the informant that he become helpless and in order to save his life, managed a sum of Rs. 5000/- and handed it over to them.

8. On the basis of the written report of informant, Telco P.S. Case No. 77/01 dated 11.04.01 was registered under Sections 147,341,342,323,448,384,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was investigated by the P.W. 8 who upon completion of investigation submitted charge sheet No. 80/01 dated 30.06.01 under Sections 147,341,342,323,448,384,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was also taken against the accused persons under the aforesaid Sections on 07.07.2001 and the case was transferred for trial. The charge was framed under Sections 147,341,342,448,384,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons on 22.01.2003 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 12.02.2008 and they denied the commission of offence and claimed to be innocent. The defence case was of total denial of the occurrence and also of false implication.

9. It has been recorded in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court that the accused Uma Shankar Singh died during the course of trial and accordingly the proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated 29.01.2009.

10.The prosecution in support of the case examined altogether 8 witnesses out of them P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had turned hostile. P.W. 3 was the Doctor who examined the informant. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the witnesses. P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. The injury report of the informant has been exhibited as Exhibit-1 apart from other exhibits. P.W. 3, the Doctor who had examined the informant. P.w-3 has stated that he had examined the informant on the date of incident at about 12:30 P.M. and found lacerated wound over inner part of upper lips and contusion left side of the chest, left scapular region over the back and end of abdomen. He had opined that the injuries were simple in nature caused by fist. However, during his cross examination he deposed that the injuries could be caused by fall.

11.P.W. 7 who is the informant of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that on 11.04.2001 at about 8 A.M. the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 had entered into his house and the petitioner No. 4 asked him as to why he had stopped the treatment of his wife in Telco hospital to which the informant stated that he had not done so. It was further deposed that in the meantime other three accused persons also entered into the house and assaulted him with slaps and dragged him to Telco hospital and made him sit in front of the chamber of the Doctor M. Ray for an hour and forcibly took the informant into the room of P.W. 4, the Manager of the Hospital Administration where petitioner No. 4 threatened him and demanded Rs. 5,000/-. It was further stated by the informant that he told P.W. 6 on telephone to send Rs. 5,000/- which was brought there by P.W. 1 and thereafter the informant gave Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner No. 4 and he was set free. During his cross examination, the informant identified all the petitioners in the dock. During his cross examination he had stated that the accused persons were members of the Trade union which affiliation was annulled by the court about prior to 5-6 months of the occurrence and that convoy drivers and the dependents were entitled for treatment in Telco Hospital on the basis

of medical cards issued in their favour and the payment of the bill of their treatment was made by T.T.C.A. and the convoy drivers were also entitled to get reimbursement of the bill of the medicine purchased outside in case of shortage of medicine in Telco Hospital. It is relevant to note that P.W. 1 who is said to have brought Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 6 as per the evidence of P.W. 7, had turned hostile before the learned Trial Court.

12.P.W. 4 is the Senior Manager of Tata Motors Hospital, (Administration) who deposed that at about 10-11 A.M. on the fateful day while he was sitting in his office suddenly several persons along with the informant entered into the office and introduced themselves to be the convoy drivers of Telco Transport contractors Association and told the informant to manage the medicine and make a call on telephone to bring money for them. Then the informant used the telephone to call someone and told him to come with money. P.W. 4 further deposed that treatment of the wife of one of the convoy driver was going on in the hospital and for the same they had asked P.W. 4 as to whether the informant had instructed not to supply medicine for her and in response P.W. 4 told that he knows nothing about the said fact and after sometime they went away.

13.So far as P.W. 5 is concerned, he is a convoy driver who has also supported the prosecution case. He had stated that at about 8-8.30 A.M. when he went to see the patient in the Telco Hospital, he saw the accused persons taking the informant inside the hospital assaulting him. They took him in front of the room of Dr. Ray where they demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him. He has further deposed that the TTCA bears the cost of the treatment of the convoy drivers and the convoy drivers are entitled to reimbursement of their bill of medicine purchased outside the hospital. He claimed to identify all the five accused persons in the dock.

14.P.W. 6 is a Residence Manager, Cargo Motors. He has stated that at about 9 A.M. on 11.04.2001 while he was in his office, the informant told him on telephone from Telco Hospital to sent Rs. 5,000/- at once. The informant also informed him that accused persons had forcibly taken him to Telco Hospital assaulting from his house and consequently P.W. 6 instructed P.W. 1 to give Rs. 5,000/- to informant in Telco Hospital. He has further submitted that upon

receiving of Rs. 5,000/- the accused persons had set him free. P.W. 6 had identified the accused persons in the dock, except the petitioner No. 1,

15.The Investigating Officer of the case was examined as P.W. 8 who has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated the boundary of the place of occurrence and stated that he had investigated the prosecution witnesses and had submitted the charge sheet. During the course of cross examination, he had stated that he had seen injury in the chest and teeth of informant.

16.This court further finds that all the prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross examined from the side of the defence.

17.This court finds that P.W. 1 Bijay Singh who is said to have given Rs. 5,000/- to the informant in the hospital under the instruction of P.W. 6 had turned hostile. This court also finds that the oral evidences available on record is corroborated by the medical evidence of the Doctor who had examined the informant immediately after the incident.

18.After considering the materials on record the learned Trial Court recorded that the case of the informant (P.W. 7) was supported by other witnesses namely P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 4. However, the learned Trial Court recorded that though P.W. 6 had deposed that he had sent Rs. 5,000/- to P.W. 7 through P.W. 1 but P.W. 1 turned hostile and has not supported the fact that he had brought Rs. 5,000/- in Telco Hospital. In the aforesaid circumstances the learned Trial Court held the fact that the informant gave Rs. 5,000/- to the accused persons has not been proved and hence instead of Section 384 IPC, the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the accused persons had put the informant in fear of injury and demanded Rs. 5,000/- which is an offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Trial court further held that there is no clear evidence on record to support the charge under Section 504 IPC, hence the accused were acquitted from charge under Section 504 IPC. The learned Trial Court convicted all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147,341, 342, 323,448, 385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them for the offence under section 504 IPC. The learned Trial Court sentenced them for one year

rigorous imprisonment each for offence under Sections 147,385 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment each for offence under Sections 342,323, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

19. The learned Appellate Court upon perusal of the statement recorded by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. found that no question with regard to demand of Rs. 5,000/- and receipt thereof was put before any of the accused including the petitioner No. 4. The learned Appellate Court was of the view that on account of the aforesaid statement regarding demand and receipt of Rs. 5,000/- having not been put to the accused persons, the conviction under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable and accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 385 IPC for all the appellants.

20.Learned Appellate Court further considered the evidences on record and was of the view that no doubt P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had turned hostile but the remaining six witnesses including the informant, doctor and the Investigating Officer had fully supported the prosecution case. The learned Appellate Court not only considered the evidence of the witnesses but also found that the learned Trial Court had made elaborate discussion on every aspect of the prosecution case in the light of the defence taken in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and was of the view that the learned Trial Court acted judiciously by holding that no offence under Section 385 and 504 IPC was made out. The learned Appellate Court also found that P.W.s 4,5 and 6 cannot be said to be interested witnesses as they had explained the occasion for them to have witnessed the part of the occurrence for which their respective depositions were confined. The learned Appellate Court after going through the materials on record on the one hand set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 385 IPC and on the other hand upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Section 147/342/323/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, while considering the sentence, the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed for rigorous imprisonment of six months under each Sections i.e. Sections 147,342,323,448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also recorded compensation of Rs. 5,000/-each to be given to the informant under Section 357(3) Cr.

PC. and on default further imprisonment of six months each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. While reducing the sentence, the learned Appellate Court considered the factual backdrop of the case.

21.This court finds that the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147,342,323,448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is supported by cogent evidences on record and the learned courts below have convicted the petitioners by concurrent findings so far as the offence under the aforesaid Sections are concerned by considering their respective arguments and the materials available on record. There is no illegality or perversity in connection with the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147,342,323,448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld. On the point of Sentence.

22.However, the fact remains that the case is of the year 2001 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 15.09.2009 and at the time of conviction, the petitioner nos. 1,2,3,4 were of 50 years, 48 years, 40 years and 46 years of age respectively and accordingly their present age are about 62 years, 60 years, 51 years and 57 years respectively. The petitioners have faced the rigorous of criminal case for more than 20 years and there appears to be no criminal antecedents of the petitioners from the records of the present case. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of the petitioners calls for some modification. Accordingly, the sentence of each petitioner is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 months under each Section 147,342,323,448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5000/-(Rs.1000/- under each section) to be deposited by each of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount within the stipulated time frame, the petitioners would undergo the sentence imposed by the learned lower appellate court. So far as compensation of Rs.5000/- each awarded by the learned lower appellate court is concerned, the same does not call for any interference.

23.This revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

24.Bail-bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby cancelled.

25.Any pending interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed.

26.Let the records of the case be immediately sent back to the learned court below.

27.Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through e- mail/FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/