Washim Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4405 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2020
                                             ....

                Washim Khan                                           ....    Petitioner
                                             Versus
                The State of Jharkhand                                .... Opposite Party
                                             ....
                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner           : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv.
                For the State                : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
                                                     ....
08/25.11.2021             The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2017, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Koderma P.S. Case No.143 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.944 of 2014 (T.R. No.458 of 2017) whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 02 years for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, namely, Tabbasum Khanam has been threatened by this revisionist for withdrawing Koderma P.S. Case No.93 of 2014, in which the father of this revisionist was accused. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 342, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed.

To substantiate the prosecution story four witnesses have been examined. P.W.-1, namely, Moin Ansari and P.W.-2, namely, Pappu Khan have become hostile. P.W.-3, the informant has only supported the case. P.W.-4 is the I.O.

On completion of proceeding, the revisionist has been punished for the offence under Section 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Being aggrieved, an appeal has been filed and the appellate court has sustained the order of conviction as well as the punishment.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that there is no independent witness as both the independent witnesses have become hostile. The conviction is only on the basis of statement of the informant-P.W-3. There is no injury on the part of the informant rather it is not even allegation. Thus, the entire allegation is based upon the oral testimony of the P.W.-3- the informant without any corroboration. The enmity between the parties is writ large as his father is accused in another case in which she is informant in that case also. On above facts, it has been submitted that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge and as such, the revisionist deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against him.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submission has been advanced that the I.O. and the informant have supported the evidence and as such there is sufficient material available on record for sustaining the conviction.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record and the cross-examination, it appears that the alleged place of occurrence is the Sainik Institute near the court and there are so many houses but nobody has seen the incident. It has been further admitted that this revisionist and his father is living separately. Thus, the narration stated therein and the materials available on record, does not rule out the fact that it is a case of false implication in the absence of any corroboration and only on the basis of bald statement made by the informant-P.W.- 3 guilt of accused cannot be presumed.

In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge, accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted from the charge.

Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2017, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Koderma P.S. Case No.143 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.944 of 2014 (T.R. No.458 of 2017) are, hereby quashed and set aside.

Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.

I.A. No.5390 of 2021 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Shahid/