Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Prasad @ Binod Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 783 of 2012
1. Vinod Prasad @ Binod Prasad
2. Shrawan Prasad
3. Ajay Prasad
All are sons of Bihari Sao,
Residents of Village- Saraidih, P.O.- Saraidih,
Pokhari, P.S.- Barwadih,
District- Latehar ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
11/20.09.2021 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P. appearing
on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the
Judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011
whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the
petitioners under Sections 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code was upheld, although they were acquitted from the
offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the
criminal appeal was partly allowed.
4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. Case No. 557 of
2008 / Tr. No. 535 of 2011 (arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case
No. 81/2008 dated 24.12.2008), had convicted the petitioners
under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and had sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 06 months on each offence and all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was
delay in lodging the First Information Report, inasmuch as, the
incident was dated 07.10.2008 and the FIR was instituted on
24.12.2008 and no independent witness has been examined. He
submitted that P.W.-5 (son of the informant) is not a reliable
witness as he stated that he had suffered some injury, but the
doctor, who had treated him, has not been examined. He
further submitted that three prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.- 6,
7 and 8 have been declared hostile as they did not support the
prosecution case and the Investigating Officer of the case has
also not been examined. He submitted that the basic
ingredients of the offences, for which the petitioners have been
ultimately convicted, are not satisfied in the present case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners
may be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act or the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and
reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial
custody and the petitioners are ready to deposit some fine
amount or victim compensation.
7. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have
remained in judicial custody from 29.11.2012 to at least
13.12.2012, when they were admitted to bail by this Court
during pendency of the present criminal revision application
and some more days must have been taken by the petitioners
for furnishing the bail bond, etc. before the learned court below.
Submissions on behalf of the OppositeParty-State
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State, on
the other hand, while opposing the prayer submitted that there
are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below,
so far as the offences under Sections 323, 448 and 504/34 of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned. He also submitted that the
cause of occurrence was regular eve-teasing of the daughter of
the informant by the Petitioner No.3-Ajay Prasad, which stood
proved by the evidence of P.W.-2 Manju Kumari (daughter of
the informant). He submitted that P.W.-5 has stated that when
the Petitioner No.3-Ajay Prasad entered into his house, he was
inside his house, but he was having fractured leg. He also
deposed that no sooner the Petitioner No.3 arrived at his house,
his parents came there and that the house of the Petitioner
No.3-Ajay Prasad is about at a distance of 100 yards from his
house. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that so far as the
other two petitioners namely, Vinod Prasad @ Binod Prasad
and Shrawan Prasad are concerned, they entered into the house
and arrived at the spot and freed Ajay Prasad, who was
confined in the room when caught in the house. The learned
A.P.P. submitted that considering the nature of offences
involved in the case, no sympathetic view may be taken. He
submitted that in view of the concurrent findings on conviction
under the aforesaid sections, no interference is called for in
revisional jurisdiction. He also submitted that the learned trial
court has already taken a lenient view by sentencing the
petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
only under each offence and by directing the sentences to run
concurrently.
Findings of this Court
9. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant
namely, Urmila Devi alleging that on 07.10.2008, she alongwith
her husband had gone out of the house on the occasion of
Durga Puja and when they returned at 10.00 P.M., they found
Ajay Prasad (Petitioner No.3) standing at her door. When the
purpose was asked, he admitted his guilt. Thereafter, they
confined him in a room and her husband went to call Ramnath
Sao, the Pradhan of the village. In the meantime, Shrawan
Prasad and Binod Prasad came there who were informed and
Ajay Prasad was freed at the arrival of the Pradhan. It was
further stated that Ajay Prasad used to tease her daughter
namely, Manju Kumari, aged about 14 years and on that day,
he had come there for the said purpose. Thereafter, Shrawan
Prasad and Binod Prasad snatched away the key and caused
escape of their brother Ajay Prasad.
10. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered as
Barwadih P.S. Case No. 81/2008 dated 24.12.2008 and after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter, the
substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 341, 323,
448, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was explained to the
petitioners in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 08
witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is Urmila Devi who is the
informant of the case. P.W.-2 is Manju Kumari, minor daughter
of the informant. P.W.-3 is Parmeshwar Manjhi, husband of the
informant. P.W.-4 is Ramnath Sao, Pradhan of the village. P.W.-
5 is Om Prakash Paswan, son of the informant. P.W.-6
Ramadhar Sao, P.W.-7 Ramdeo Sao and P.W.-8 Deepak Prasad
have been declared hostile by the prosecution. After closure of
prosecution evidence, the petitioners were examined under
Section 281 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the incriminating
evidences put to them.
12. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and
recorded its findings in Para-14 that the prosecution examined
altogether eight witnesses, but P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have
been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.-2 and P.W.-4
are hearsay witnesses, although they have supported the
prosecution version to a large extent and the identity of the
accused persons is not in dispute. P.W.-1 has, by and large,
supported the prosecution version with regard to the date,
place and time of the alleged occurrence and P.W.-3, the
husband of the informant has supported the prosecution
version with regard to the manner of occurrence and has
exhibited one Complaint Petition as Exhibit-1. P.W.-5 has also
supported the prosecution version with regard to the manner,
date and place of occurrence. The learned trial court further
recorded that as per the statement of the witnesses, it has been
consistently stated that the incident took place on 07.10.2008 at
around 10.00 P.M. and the case was registered on 24.12.2008
and the delay in filing the case has been suitably explained by
the supportive witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5.
On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial court
convicted the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months on each offence and
directed that the sentences shall run concurrently, but acquitted
the Petitioner No.3, Ajay Prasad from the charge under Section
354 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on
record and recorded its findings in Para-12 that the case of the
prosecution depends on the testimony of five prosecution
witnesses and out of them, P.W.-1 informant, P.W.-3 husband
of the informant and P.W.-5 are the eye witnesses according to
the evidence and all the three witnesses supported the
allegations and corroborated each other. The cause of
occurrence is the regular eve-teasing by Ajay Prasad to the
daughter of the informant which has been proved by direct
evidence of P.W.-2 Manju Kumari. The learned appellate court
held that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to the
informant P.W.-1 and her husband P.W.-3 under Section 323 of
I.P.C. was sufficiently proved and the offence of house trespass
under Section 448 of I.P.C. was also proved against the
petitioners and the offence under Section 504 of I.P.C. regarding
intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace was
also proved against all the petitioners in the evidence. The
learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence
of the petitioners under Sections 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, but acquitted them from the offence under Section
341 of the Indian Penal Code and partly allowed the criminal
appeal.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of
the materials on record, this Court finds that P.W.-1 is the
informant-victim of the case and she deposed that she
alongwith her husband had gone in connection with Durga
Puja and when they returned, she found that Ajay Prasad had
entered into her house with bad motive. She further deposed
that Ajay Prasad had given threat also to her daughter. He was
caught and confined in the house and when the Pradhan came,
Shrawan and Binod caused him to flee away and they assaulted
the Informant and her husband by feet, shoe and fists.
15. P.W.-2, minor daughter of informant, deposed that the incident
took place on 07.10.2008 at 10.00 P.M. and earlier on 03.10.2008,
Ajay Prasad had threatened her for relation, otherwise she will
be lifted by him by 3 to 4 boys. On this threat, she had left her
house for her sister's house and later on, she came to know
about the incident.
16. P.W.-3, husband of the informant, deposed that the incident
took place on 07.10.2008 at 10.00 P.M., when he alongwith his
wife had gone to Bazar in Durga Puja and when they returned,
they saw that Ajay Prasad had entered into his house, but he
caught him trying to flee away and confined him by locking.
He asked his wife to call the Pradhan and others and hulla was
also raised. He further deposed that Shrawan and Binod caught
hold him and assaulted him by fists. When his wife returned,
they started beating. Thereafter, Pradhan came and saved them.
Ajay Prasad had fled away through the window. During his
cross-examination, he stated that the case was lodged after one
and half months later and during this period, an assurance for a
panchayati was given by the administration and ultimately, the
case was lodged on the direction of the Home Secretary,
Ranchi.
17. This Court finds that P.W.-1 Informant has supported her
version recorded in her fardbeyan and P.W.-3 has corroborated
the evidence of the informant and P.W.-2 has also supported
the allegations of eve-teasing by the Petitioner No.3-Ajay
Prasad. This Court further finds that P.Ws.- 1, 2, 3 and 5 have
proved the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence and
the delay caused in filing the case has also been properly
explained by them in their evidences and accordingly, non-
examination of the Investigating Officer does not affect the
prosecution case in any manner.
18. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
recorded consistent and concurrent findings after properly
considering the evidences on record. This Court is of the view
that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences for
interference in revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the
conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 448, 504/34 of
the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and
upheld by the learned appellate court is affirmed.
19. So far the sentence of the petitioners are concerned, considering
the facts that the occurrence is of the year 2008 and more than
13 years have elapsed since then and the petitioners have faced
the rigours of the criminal case for a long period and this is
their first offence and they have also remained in judicial
custody for some period, this Court is of the view that the ends
of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners are
modified to some extent and some fine amounts are imposed
upon them.
20. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners are modified and
reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial
custody with total fine of Rs.5,000/- each on petitioner no. 1
and 2 and Rs.7,500/- on petitioner no. 3, to be deposited by
each of the petitioners before the learned court below within a
period of six months from the date of communication of a copy
of this judgment to the learned court below. The fine amount is
directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due
identification.
21. In case the fine amounts are not deposited within the stipulated
time frame, the petitioners would serve the sentences under
Sections 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as imposed
by the learned court below.
22. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and modification in
the sentences of the petitioners, this criminal revision
application is hereby disposed of.
23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
24. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to the
court concerned.
25. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/
