Jhari Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3953 Jhar

                                       1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1459 of 2003

          ( Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
          12.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-VI,
          Hazaribagh, in S.T. No.200 of 2000, arising out of Keredari P.S. Case
          No.30 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1302 of 1999)

           1.   Jhari Rana
           2.   Jagdish Mahto
           3.   Aditya Rana
           4.    Bahadur Saw
           5.   Mahabir Rana                              ...    Appellants
                                 Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                 ...   Respondent
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

---

           For the Appellants         : M/s .Deepak Kumar &
                                        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocates
           For the State              : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP

           Reserved on : 21.10.2021                  Pronounced on : 22.10.2021

5/22.10.2021      This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-VI, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No.200 of 2000, arising out of Keredari P.S. Case No.30 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1302 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 364 of IPC and under section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,1908 and they have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each under Section 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of IPC and it has further been ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case arises in the wake of the fardbeyan of one Baleshwar Rana, aged about 30 years, son of Punit Rana of village keredari, district-Hazaribagh. The said informant Baleshwar Rana had given the fardbeyan before Keredari police alleging that in the night of 31.07.99 at about 10.45 PM, when the informant was about

to sleep, the accused Aditya Rana (appellant no.3, hereinafter referred to as A-3) along with other accused persons entered into the house of the informant. They caught hold the arm of the mother of the informant and the accused-appellants persons threatened to open the door. The mother of the informant called Rameshwar Rana, brother, maternal uncle Gandouri Rana and Mamera brother Kailash Rana to open their door. It is further alleged that Rameshwar Rana, Gandouri Rana and Kailash Rana opened their door. In the meantime, accused Aditya Rana, Mahabir Rana, Fagu Rana, Keshwari Thakur, Bahadur Paswan, Jagdish Sao, Arjun Mahto, Bhagirath Mahto and 10-15 other unknown persons armed with revolver and guns, all dragged the brother of the informant Rameshwar Rana, mama Gandouri Rana and his cousin brother Kailash Rana and took them away towards forest south side. The informant further stated that he had seen the occurrence through the window. The night was moonlit.

The informant has further alleged that the miscreants had given threats that if the informant would inform the police, they (accused) will take away the lives of the members of his family. The informant has further stated that after departure of the miscreants towards the jungle, the mother Lagni Devi, Sister-in-law Jirwa Devi and wife of Basudeo Rana started going towards the jungle, where the accused persons took the said three persons after kidnapping. The miscreants scolded the above three persons, namely, Lagni Devi, Jirwa Devi and wife of Basudeo Rana. The informant due to fear stayed at his house. The informant disclosed this incident to his neighbours but due to fear they did not come out. The informant has stated that there is land dispute between the accused Jhari Rana and the prosecution party. The informant has stated that accused Jhari Rana got executed 72 decimals of land from the prosecution party. When the accused Jhari Rana did not pay the consideration amount, then the mother of the informant and maternal uncle of the informant filed an application before the Registry office for cancellation of the sale deed, and the Chirkuts (Receipts of the

execution of Sale Deed) were with them. The informant has alleged that due to above reason, the accused persons-miscreants called the brother of the informant, maternal uncle and mamera brother with intention to kill them and took them away toward the jungle.

3. Having recorded the fardbeyan, the Keredari police station formerly instituted the FIR vide Keredari P.S. case No.30 / 99 dated 01.08.19 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet, thereafter cognizance taken and the case is committed to the Court of Session. After Commitment the learned court below farmed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 364 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 and the trial of the case commenced. After completion of the trial, learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on 12th September 2003, which is under challenge in the form of Cr. Appeal No.1459 of 2003, in hand.

4. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.6 Arjun Mahto had expired in the year 2011 as per the report received for the officer in-charge of Keredari police station dated 9.05.2019. No any application to seek leave of the court to continue with the appeal by any of his near relatives has been filed on behalf of the said deceased appellant No.6 Arjun Mahto and several 30 days have elapsed since his death and therefore this appeal gets abated with respect to the appellant No.6 Arjun Mahto and as such his name has been deleted from the Cause Title of this Criminal Appeal.

5. Heard learned defence counsels Mr. Deepak Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey appearing on behalf of the rest of the appellants No.1 to 5 and learned counsel for the State.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned court below has not considered the evidences available on record as per the provisions of

the law and totally erred in appreciating the admitted fact that there had been a land standing dispute between the parties. It has further been urged on behalf of the appellants that learned Trial Court has much emphasized on surmises and conjecture instead of considering the legal evidences available on record, which completely shows the innocence of the appellants and also the learned court below has completely ignored the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It has further been pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the discrepancies in the evidences of PW- 1 Ashok Rana and the admitted position that both the parties were on litigating terms as stated by PW - 2 Rukmini Devi, have been completely ignored in the appreciation of evidence by the learned court below. Further it has also been pointed out that PW - 3 Sahodari Devi is not a reliable witness on the point of identification of the accused persons in the night and similarly PW - 4 Kunti Devi, who is the wife of the informant, was completely ignorent about the house of the accused persons, although all the accused appellants were the neighbours and this evidence is self contradictory and cannot be relied upon, but the learned court below has erringly relied upon the same. Further the important witnesses have not been examined on behalf of the prosecution and rather they have been called by the Court for examination as court witness No.1 Baleshwar Rana, Court witness No.2 Rajiv Ranjan Lal, Court witness No.3 Rameshwer Rana, the Court witness No.4 Kailash Rana and the Court witness No.5 Gandouri Rana and after going through the depositions, the false implications in the light of admitted litigation and also the pendency of civil suit between the parties, cannot be ruled out and thus the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set-aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the APP vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there is no error either in the appreciation of law, vis- a-vis, facts by the learned trial court and there is no legal point to

interfere in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below. It has further been pointed out by the learned APP that there are sufficient evidences to support the offences under which the appellants were covicted by the trial court therefore the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is wholly justified.

8. Having gone through the contentions of the learned counsels for the parties, perused the record of the case.

9. It is found that the prosecution has been able to examine four witnesses. PW - 1 Ashok Rana, PW - 2 Rukmini Devi, PW - 3 Sahodari Devi and PW - 4 Kunti Devi. Further it is found that after recording the statements of the accused persons under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C., the learned court below had summoned the I.O. and informant through the Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter five court witnesses were further examined as Court witness No.1, Baleshwar Rana, the informant of this case, court witness No.2 Rajiv Ranjan, I.O. of this case, Court witness No.3 Rameshwer Rana, Court witness No.4 Kailash Rana and Court witness No.5 Gandouri Rana. The doctor has not been examined in this case.

10. Further it is found that although the charges were framed in this case against these appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 364/120-B of Indian Penal code and under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, but the guilt of the appellants have been held for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120- B, 342 and 323 of IPC only and accordingly they have been convicted therein and they have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.

11. It is well settled law that the enmity is a double-edged weapon and therefore the defence taken on behalf of the appellant that it is admitted case of enmity between the parties due to the execution of Sale- Deed of landed properties between the appellants and the informant people and also the pending litigation to that effect, the

enmity, ipso facto cannot be a ground to discard the glaring evidences available on record to sustain the convictions of the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of IPC inasmuch as there are cogent evidences otherwise. On the point of defece of enmity it has been categorically held by Hon'ble Apex court in Anil Raj V. State Of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3173 as under :

'' 18. ............ In case of inimical witnesses the courts are required to scruitinise their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive of the commission of the crime, the accused can not urge that depite the proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses proved to be inimical should not be relied upon. Bitter animosity, held to be a double-edged weapon, may be instrumental for false involvement or in the witnesses interfering and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be kept in mind while evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime..."

12. In view of the aforesaid priciple of law on enmity which has been taken as one of the grounds of defence on behalf appellants it manifest that the learned trial court has meticulously examined the evidences available on record and found that some of the witnesses had been exaggerating the role of accused-appellants and keeping in mind such possibilities the learned trial court after analysing the evidences did not find the charges of kidnapping and abduction for the purpose of murder true and hence acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 147 and 364 of IPC and section 17 of CLA Act,1908 and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 148,120-B,342 and 323 of the IPC only. Having gone through the evidencs available on record this Court does not find any error or illegality in the appreciation of the legal

evidences available on record when it is found that the testimony of eyewitnesses are found consistent and convincing by this court also. PW - 1 Ashok Rana has stated that he along with his father Gandouri Rana were assaulted by the appellants. PW - 2 Rukmini Devi has also corroborated the assault and admitted the litigating terms between the parties. Similarly PW - 3 Sahodari Devi has also corroborated the story of assault. PW - 4 Kunti Devi has also supported the assault by the appellants. Further Court witness No.3 Rameshwar Rana has specifically stated that he was assaulted by the accused persons and they were asking the chirkut ( Receipts of sale deed), related to the land dispute. It has also manifested from the prosecution story that the accused persons have forcibly got the sale- deed executed sale deed in their favour from the informant party without payment of consideration amount and for that the receipt of sale deed was kept with the informant party and for that reasons the accused appellants who were in agreeement with each other have assaulted the informant people by entring into the house of the appellants armed with weapons, wrongfully restrained the informent people by causing hurt in order to take the said chirkut ( Receipts of sale deed) and all these facts have been explitly supported by the versions of Court Witnesses 1,2,3 and 4 and also P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 on the point of assault and wrongful confinement by the appellants armed with weapon consistently and uniformally. It further appears form the evidences of court witness No.3, who is one of the aggrieved persons, have been assaulted twice. Further after appraising the depositions of Court witnesses No.3 Rameshwar Rana, from the testimony of the Court Witness 1 Baleswar Rana, the Court Witness No.4 Kailash Rana, it is well established that they have also corroborated the charges of assault and wrongful confinement against the appellants and their evidences are pointedly suggesting that the intention of the appellants were to secure the chirkut (plain paper of the receipt of the sale deeds) executed in favour of the accused- appellants by the informant people and not to kidnap or to abduct to kill them as

rightly held by the trial court after appreciating their depositions.

13. It is categorically found that C.W.No.3 Rameshwar Rana has stated that the appellant Jhari Ram uttered that unless the Chirkut( the receipts of the Sale deed ) is not delievered by the informant people they would not be released. Similarly Court witness No.5 Gandouri Rana, one of the victims, has also corroborated the assault for the purpose of securing the chirkut of the sale deed and it was also disclosed by him that the chirkut was delivered to the appellant No.1 Jhari Rana. Learned Trial Court had flawlessly appreciated the evidences and found that the sale deed was got to be executed forcibly by the accused persons from the informant people and for that no consideration amount was paid by the accused-appellants to the informant people. Further the learned trial court below has also correctly appraised the evidences and legally found that the incident was only with a view to secure the receipts of the sale deed (Chirkut) executed by the informant people in favour of the accused persons. It is also emanating from the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses that since no consideration money was paid by the appellants, the chirkut (receipt of the sale deed) were intentionally withheld by the informant people , but the appellants committed offence for the purpose of securing the said chirkut (receipt of the sale deed) by unlawful means when all the appellants being the member of unlawful assembly were armed with weapons wrongfully restrained the informant people and assaulted them to deliever the Chirkut(the receipts of Sale deed). Thus the evidence of Court witnesses No. 1,3, 4 and 5 are in consistent with the I.O. who is court witness No.2 on the point that the appellants have wrongfully confined the victims and they were assaulted by them for unlawful object with criminal intention for the purpose of securing the chirkut (receipts of sale deed) from the informant people and thus the learned court below has rightly held the guilt of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of IPC. It is will founded from the evidences that the appellants after securing the receipt of the sale deed

(chirkut), they have released the victims when their object was fulfilled and further the learned court below has rightly appreciated the circumstances appearing from the evidences for the offence of the criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC, where the appellants have assembled for committing the offence as it is settled that the appellants, even if, not present in a particular meeting with certain other accused, not material as conspiracy can be proved by the circumstantial evidence and this Court does not find any error in the findings of the learned court below against the accused persons by holding the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellants were convicted for the same.

14. In the backdrop, this Court upholds the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. Hearing on the point of sentence, the learned defence counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants have pointed out that all the appellants have become very old and during the course of the pendency of this case, they have already served sufficient period in jail and therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellants that let the appellants be sentenced of imprisonment for the period already undergone.

16. The APP, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions of the learned defence counsel that under the cicumstances of the case the appellants do not deserve any leniency in the award of sentence and there is no legal point to interfere in the sentences awarded by the learned court below.

17. Having taken into consideration the submissions of the parties, it is found from the record that the Jhari Rana, Jagdish Mahto, Bahadur Sao and Mahabir Rana had been in jail from 11.10.1999 to 29.01.2000 and the appellant No.3 Aditya Rana has remained in jail from 28.02.2000 to 14.07.2000. Further there is nothing on record to show about their criminal history and the case is of the year 1999

and all the appellants have been facing the hardships and misery of the criminal proceedings since last more than 20 years and therefore it is just and fair to take a reasonable and pragmatic view in awarding the sentence and this court finds that the purpose would be served if each of the appellants is sentenced of imprisonment for the period already undergone for each of the offences.

18. In the result, the order of sentence passed by the learned court below to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for each appellant under each of Sections 148, 120(B), 342 and 323 IPC is set-aside and instead of that all the appellants are awarded the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone for each of the offences.

19. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

20. In the backdrop, this criminal appeal is dismissed with modificationss in order of sentence as above.

21. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the court concered below.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated: 22nd October, 2021 R.Kumar/N.A.F.R