Babumani Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3323 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                Cr. Rev. No. 526 of 2003

                1. Babumani Yadav, son of Late Jamuna Yadav
                2. Putul Yadav, son of Late Jamuna Yadav
                3. Gopal Yadav, son of Late Jamuna Yadav
                   all resident of village- Kharadah, P.S. Jasidih, Sub-Division &
                   District- Deoghar                ...      ...     Petitioners
                                         Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Sohan Pd. Yadav S/o Late Ganesh Pd. Yadav
                   Resident of Village Koradih P.S. Jasidih District Deoghar
                                               ...       ...       Opposite Parties
                                         ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party- State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

18/08.09.2021 Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. This revision application is directed against the judgement dated 29.03.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 126 of 2001 by which he has dismissed the appeal with modification. The appeal was preferred against judgement and order dated 29.06.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 758 of 1996 (T.R. No. 91 of 2001) whereby the petitioners were found guilty for offence under Sections 323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code and upon hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, the learned trial court had given them the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act directing them to enter into bond of Rs. 5,000/- each for maintaining and keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year.

4. The appellate court modified the aforesaid direction issued under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and has given the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned appellate court directed the petitioners to appear within two months and after due admonition, they were directed to be released and as such, the appellate court set-aside the order of executing bond for one year.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below have failed to properly consider the evidences on record while convicting the petitioners. It is submitted that it was an admitted case between the parties that the village was a pradhani village and accordingly only the village Pradhan could settle the land. Even the investigating officer of the case has stated in his evidence that he has registered a counter case in the matter and the counter case was found true. He submits that exhibit-A and B were the FIR and charge-sheet of the counter case being G.R. Case number 756 of 1996 which is in fact the counter version of the case. The learned counsel submits that the impugned judgements are perverse and are fit to be set-aside.

6. The learned counsel for the state on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements and accordingly this petition may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution story is based on the Fardbeyan of Sohan Pd. Yadav recorded by Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh at Deoghar police station on 30.09.1996 wherein the informant had alleged that his mother Sukri Devi and brothers Mukund Yadav and Mohan Pd. Yadav were ploughing the field bearing plot no.

342. At around 9 a.m. Gopoal Yadav, Babumani Yadav and Putul Yadav -the petitioners came with lathi and tangi in their hands and asked the informant as to why they were ploughing

the field. In response, it was stated by the informant that the land belongs to them as it was settled by Bhoodan and they have been cultivating the land for the last 10 to 15 years, upon which, the petitioner no. 1 threatened him as he was the Pradhan of the village and stated that Bhoodan Yagna Committee has no right to the land. It was alleged that in the meantime, Gopal Yadav assaulted the informant with tangi on his head, due to which the informant fell on the ground and when mother of the informant came to rescue, then said Gopal Yadav also assaulted the mother of the informant with tangi in her head causing bleeding injury.

8. It was further case of the prosecution that the brother of the informant Mukund Yadav had raised hulla and asked the accused persons as to why they were committing such crime. Upon which, Putul Yadav assaulted him with tangi on his head due to which he also fell down. Thereafter, Mohan Prasad Yadav came to rescue, then Babumani Yadav assaulted his brother Mohan Prasad Yadav with lathi. In the mean time, the labourers working there namely Tuntun Pujhar, Dinesh Pujhar, Bhola Yadav and Ashranand Jha came for rescue then the accused persons fled away with a threatening to inform the police, but the informant went to Superintendent of Police from where he went to Deoghar Police Station on the basis of which his fardbeyan was recorded and the case was instituted and sent to Jasidih police-station which was registered as Jasidih P.S. Case No. 159 of 1996 dated 01.10.1996 for offences under Sections 341/323/324/504/34 of Indian Penal Code with corresponding G.R. Case No. 758 of 1996. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted bearing charge-sheet no. 96/1996 dated 27.10.1996.

9. The charges were framed under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, the prosecution

examined altogether nine witnesses including the investigating officer and the doctor who had examined the victims.

10. P.W. 1 was Lakshman Yadav, P.W. 2 - Mohan Prasad Yadav- the injured, P.W. 3- Sadanand Yadav - the uncle of the informant, P.W. 4 Tantan Pujhar, P.W. 5 - Digo Pujhar, P.W. 6 - Mukund Yadav - the injured and P.W. 7 - Sohan Yadav - the informant who supported the prosecution case of assault upon the informant and his family members. The prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined from the side of the defence.

11. After considering the materials on record and evidences of the witnesses, the learned trial court gave its finding in para 8 of the trial court judgement, which is quoted as under:

"8. The informant, P.W. 7 has fully supported his case on the point of alleged assault. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was at his field being plot no. 342 along with P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 and the same field has been possessed by him on account of endowment made by Bhoodan Yagyan Committee in favour of his father. He has stated that accused persons came there and objected them upon which the informant asked them as to endowment but they did not pay any heed and accused Gopal assaulted him by means of Tangi causing bleeding injury upon his head. He has also stated that when his brothers came there they were also assaulted by accused Gopal and Putul causing them injuries upon their head. Mohan Yadav was also assaulted by accused Babumani Yadav and when the witnesses came there the accused persons left the place and due to fear they rushed to S.P. Deoghar after the occurrence.

The informant has been subjected to lengthy cross- examination by the defence but nothing serious has been elicited so as to disbelieve his testimony. He has not admitted that accused Babu Mani Yadav has also filed a case for the occurrence of same day and has also denied the suggestion of defence that in order to save his skin from the counter-case he

has falsely deposed in the case. Admittedly, there is a counter version of this case and informant and other P.Ws. are accused in that case but only due to existence of a counter case the testimony of informant cannot be brushed aside."

12. Prosecution witness nos. 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have fully supported the prosecution case.

13. P.W. 9 is the doctor whose evidence has been considered by the learned trial court in paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgement:

"14. P.W. 9 is Dr. Geeta Mishra, M.O. Sadar hospital, Deoghar, who had examined Sukri Devi, Mukund Pd. Yadav, Sohan Pd. Yadav and Mohan Pd. Yadav on 30-9-96 and had found injuries upon their persons and had issued injury reports which have been marked as ext. 5, 5/1, 5/2, 5/2 respectively.

15. The doctor (P.W. 9) have found lacerated injury on left perital area on the middle of scalp 1/2" x 1/4"x skin deep, abrasion 1" x 1" on left fore arm dorsolateral area and an abrasion on left side of back below scapula 2" x 1" she has opined the injuries as simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. As such injury no. (1) has been fully in conformity with the testimony of informant and other injuries also supports the contention of the informant. Similarly, the doctor has found lacerated wound 1 1/2" x ½"x skin deep on left perital area of Mukund Pd. Yadav (P.W. 6) and this fact corroborates the testimony of P.W. 6. The doctor has also found injury upon the person of Mohan Pd. Yadav (P.W. 2) confirming the hurt caused to him by hard and blunt substance. One of the injured Sukri Devi have not been examined by the prosecution in court but due to her non-examination no adverse effect has to be taken in the case."

14. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 323, 341 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code.

15. The learned appellate court, after considering the materials on record, gave its findings in para 11 of its judgement, which is quoted as under:

"11. After having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and after looking into the evidence brought on record I find that the prosecution-witnesses have fully supported the case of assault upon the injured persons and it is admitted even in the evidence of D.W. 1 that the informant was cutting the land when he had gone to object the same being the Pradhan of the village. The witnesses have been cross-examined on the point of assault also, but no such discrepancy could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants so as to discredit the testimony of the witnesses on the point of assault. Though the defence has denied the fact that the land was settled to the informant in Bhoodan, but the prosecution has brought documentary evidence which are Exts- 6 & 7 to show that the land was settled in Bhoodan to the informant and the same was confirmed by order dt. 17.7.79 passed by the D.C.L.R., Deoghar and the rent was fixed by the D.C.L.R., Deo. by order dt. 28.3.80. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to rebutt these documentary evidences filed on behalf of the prosecution. The oral evidence of assault on the injured persons has been fully supported by the medical evidence also, inasmuch as, P.W. 9 Dr. Geeta Mishra has proved the injuries on the injureds which were all simple in nature. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the judgment passed by the court below finding the appellants guilty for the offence u/Ss- 323, 341 and 504/34 I.P.C. and convicting them for the same."

16. So far as the plea of land dispute is concerned, the same has been considered by the learned court below. The appellate court has considered the defence evidence denying the fact that the land was settled to the informant in Bhoodan, and also considered the prosecution evidence that as per Exhibits- 6 & 7

the land was settled in Bhoodan to the informant and the same was confirmed by order dt. 17.7.79 passed by the D.C.L.R., Deoghar and the rent was fixed by the D.C.L.R., Deo. by order dt. 28.3.80, and nothing was brought on record by the defence to rebut these documentary evidences filed on behalf of the prosecution. The learned court also found that the oral evidence of assault on the injured persons was fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, merely because there was also a counter case with regards to the same incident, the same has no bearing in the matter. The appellate court also considered materials on record and found no illegality and/or irregularity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court convicting the petitioners for the offence u/Ss- 323, 341 and 504/34 I.P.C.

17. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have scrutinized the materials on record and have passed well-reasoned judgments giving concurrent findings while convicting the petitioners. There is no scope for reappreciating the evidences on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction. There being no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction, the present revision petition is dismissed.

18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

19. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.

20. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.

21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'FAX/email'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj