Jharkhand High Court
Gour Rana Son Of Ganesh Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 364 of 2012
Gour Rana son of Ganesh Rana, resident of Village- Arajori,
P.O.- Babangawan, P.S.- Sarath, District- Deoghar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary,
Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Niki Sinha, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
07/20.09.2021 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.
3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the
judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 121/2006
whereby the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction
of the petitioner under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal
Code, but modified and reduced the sentences of the petitioner
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for offence
under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code and Simple
Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 354 of
Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal with modification
in the sentences.
4. The said criminal appeal was preferred against the
judgement and order of conviction dated 13.07.2006 passed by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at
Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 345/2001 (T.R. No. 204/2006) by
which the petitioner was convicted for the offences under
Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section
448 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for one
year under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 448
and 354 of Indian Penal Code and the alleged date of
occurrence is 25.08.2001 at 10 pm at night. The learned counsel
submitted that there are material contradictions in the
evidences of witnesses. PW - 4 has stated that she had given her
statement before police on Saturday, although the FIR has been
lodged on 26.08.2001, which was a Sunday. He submitted that
there are material contradictions in connection with the place of
occurrence also and I.O. having not been examined in the
present case, the place of occurrence has not been proved. He
also submitted that there is delay of 14 hours in giving written
complaint to the police and the delay has not been explained.
6. He further submitted that there were altogether eight
witnesses as per charge-sheet and only four prosecution
witnesses, who are closely related to each other, have been
examined. Withholding of remaining four charge-sheeted
witnesses, including the investigating officer of the case, has
caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel also submitted that the reason for
false implication of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a
witness in a case filed in the year 1997, in which the informant
party was accused and on the date of the alleged occurrence in
the present case, the trial of the said case was going on.
However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the petitioner fairly submitted that it has not come in
evidence as to what was the date on which the petitioner was to
be examined or was examined in the case, in which he was a
witness and informant party was accused.
8. The learned counsel finally submitted that the alleged
occurrence is of the year 2001 and accordingly, more than 20
years have elapsed. The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedent and at the relevant point of time, when the
occurrence had taken place, the maximum sentence prescribed
under Section 354 of IPC was two years and no minimum
sentence as such was prescribed. The petitioner has also been
convicted under Section 448 of IPC, but sentence of six months
has been imposed under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentence of three months has been imposed under Section
448 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the
defence documents have been produced i.e. Exhibit-A and
Exhibit- B, but the same were not properly considered by the
learned courts below and non-consideration of the same makes
the impugned judgement perverse.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
9. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below after
scrutinizing the materials on record. The entire evidence has
been considered by the learned courts below and merely
because the investigating officer and other remaining three
charge-sheeted witness have not been examined, the same is
not fatal to the prosecution case. She submitted that four
witnesses have been examined in the present case including the
victim-informant of the case. There are consistent evidences of
all the four witnesses and there is no material contradictions
and they have been fully cross-examined. She submitted that
minor contradictions are not the material contradictions. She
further submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to prove any material contradiction, which may
have any bearing in the conviction of the petitioner.
10. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that defence
documents i.e. Ext-A and Ext.-B have also been considered,
which is apparent from the impugned order passed by the
learned appellate court and merely because, there was previous
enmity or that the petitioner was a witness in another case of
the year 1997, the same by itself cannot be a ground to presume
that the impugned judgments are perverse. The learned A.P.P.
also submitted that the learned courts below have considered
non-examination of the investigating officer of the case and
have opined that non-examination of the investigating officer is
not fatal to the prosecution case. However, it is not in dispute
from the side of the learned counsel for the State that at the time
of occurrence, there was no minimum sentence prescribed
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum
sentence was two years.
Findings of this Court
11. Prosecution case is based on the written report of the
informant namely, Phula Devi alleging that on 25.08.2001 at 10
p.m. when the informant was sleeping along with her child, the
petitioner entered into her room, pressed her breast and tore
her blouse and on alarm, Shanti Devi and Basant Kumar Rana
reached, upon which the petitioner fled away from there. On
the basis of written report, Sarath P.S. Case No. 63 of 2001 dated
26.08.2001 was registered under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian
Penal Code and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
and cognizance of the offence was taken under the same
sections on 16.10.2001. Thereafter, the substance of accusation
under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code was explained
to the petitioner to which he denied and claimed to be tried.
12. In course of trial, altogether four prosecution witnesses
were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 is Budhan Rana,
P.W.-2 is Basant Rana, P.W.-3 is Radhika Devi and P.W.-4 is
Phula Devi who is the informant-cum-victim of the case. P.Ws.-
1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-
law respectively of the informant. Signature of Basant Kumar
Rana on the written report was exhibited as Exhibit-1 and order
dated 13.01.1986 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 151 of 1980 was
exhibited as Exhibit- 2.
13. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of
the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure wherein he denied the incriminating
evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. No defence
witness was produced from the side of petitioner. However, the
petitioner produced some documentary evidences. Exhibit-A is
certified copy of order dated 19.05.1980 passed in T.R. No. 693
of 1980 and Exhibit-B is certified copy of charge-sheet filed in
Sarath P.S. Case No. 52 of 1997.
14. P.W.-4 deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was
with her child and the petitioner had outraged her modesty and
had held her breast upon which, she raised alarm. She further
deposed that the petitioner pushed her saree into her mouth and
when she raised the alarm, the other persons present in the
house had come which included her mother-in-law, father-in-
law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. She claimed to identify
the petitioner. During her cross-examination, she stated that she
was in the room with her child and her brother-in-law and
sister-in-law were not there. The room in which she was
sleeping did not have a courtyard (verandha). She also stated
that there are three rooms and in one room, her father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law were sleeping and in the
other room, her sister-in-law was sleeping. She also stated that
when the petitioner entered her room, there was no
conversation. She further deposed that initially she had seen the
petitioner in Dhaba. She also stated that when she raised alarm,
the petitioner ran away and the other persons in the house had
seen the petitioner running away. She admitted that there is
inimical relationship between her family and the family of the
petitioner.
15. This Court finds that the informant-victim-P.W.-4 has
fully supported the prosecution case stated in her written report
and the evidence of the informant has been corroborated by the
P.W. 3 - the mother-in-law, P.W. 2- the brother-in-law and P.W.
1- the father-in-law of the informant and all three have stated
that they had seen the petitioner running away from the place
of occurrence. This Court further finds that there is consistent
evidence on record so far as the place of occurrence is
concerned and the description of the place of occurrence has
come even in the cross-examination of P.W. 4.
16. The P.W. 1 had also stated that his son had caught hold of
the leg of the petitioner while he was running away, but he
somehow managed to run away. In his cross-examination, he
also admitted that there is land dispute between the two
families and in the year, 1978, P.W. 1 was convicted in a case
filed by the father of the petitioner, but was acquitted by the
learned appellate court. He expressed his ignorance regarding
case instituted in the year 1997 under Section 307 of Indian
Penal Code by the police where the family members of the
petitioner were the witnesses. He also rejected the suggestion
that he had filed the case on account of inimical relationship
between the parties.
17. The learned trial court considered the evidences on
record and recorded that all the prosecution witnesses have
fully supported the prosecution case and there is no material
contradiction in their evidence and non-examination of the
investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. The
learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 448
and 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned
above.
18. So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the
specific case of the petitioner before the learned appellate court
was that the trial court had not appreciated the evidences
properly and there are vital contradictions in the evidences of
the witnesses and also that the prosecution witnesses are near
relation of the informant and there is no independent witness in
the case. It was further case of the petitioner before the learned
appellate court that, one of the charge-sheeted witnesses i.e. the
sister-in-law of the informant namely, Shanti Devi was not
examined, although she had come at the time and place of
occurrence and that the investigating officer of the case was not
examined which has caused prejudice to the appellant
(petitioner herein). The point of delay in filing the First
Information Report was also considered that the alleged
occurrence had taken place at dark night and there was no
mean to identify the petitioner by the prosecution witnesses
were also argued. It was also argued before the learned
appellate court on behalf of the petitioner that the sentence
imposed upon the petitioner is excessive.
19. The learned appellate court considered each and every
aspect of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and recorded its finding at Para-5. The learned
appellate court also considered the two exhibits of the appellant
(petitioner herein) as Exhibits-A and B and also the argument
that due to enmity and previous litigation, the petitioner was
falsely implicated. The learned appellate court recorded that
Exhibit- A goes to show that father-in-law of the informant was
convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, but
Exhibit-1 goes to show that in appeal against the aforesaid
conviction, the father-in-law of the informant was acquitted.
The learned appellate court also considered Exhibit-B and
recorded that it goes to show that a case had been filed by
Kedar Ram against the father-in-law of the informant, in which
the petitioner is a witness. However, the learned appellate court
was of the view that in the light of the evidences of prosecution,
it is not believable that the petitioner was falsely implicated in
the present case due to previous litigation and being witness in
a case against father-in-law of the informant. The learned
appellate court also recorded that the witnesses of the
prosecution in their statements have clearly proved that at the
time of occurrence, the appellant entered in the room of the
house of the informant where the informant was with her child
and the petitioner, after putting saree in her mouth, caught her
and pressed her breast. The learned appellate court recorded
that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the
petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. Before this Court also, the same arguments have been
advanced as were advanced before the learned appellate court.
This Court finds that the learned appellate court has passed a
well-reasoned judgement considering the arguments of the
petitioner as well as the defence documents. The plea of false
implication on the basis that the petitioner was a witness in a
case against the father-in-law of the informant, has been
rejected by the learned appellate court by well-reasoned order.
This Court also finds that admittedly no date regarding
recording of evidence of the petitioner in the case in which the
father-in-law of the informant was an accused, has been
brought on record from the side of the defence and merely
because the petitioner was a witness in one of the cases against
the father-in-law of the informant, the same by itself is not
sufficient to conclude any false implication, that too in
revisional jurisdiction. So far as argument regarding
contradiction with regards to the day being Saturday as stated
by PW - 4, although the FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2001,
which was a Sunday is concerned, the same is not a material
contradiction at all when the learned courts below have
considered all the materials on record and have given
concurrent findings. So far as the argument that four charge-
sheeted witnesses have not been produced is concerned, the
same has no bearing in the case as the learned courts below
have convicted the petitioner on the basis of the witnesses
examined in the court including the victim of the case who has
been thoroughly cross examined by the defence and has also
considered the defence evidence.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the power of
revisional court in the case of "Jagannath Choudhary and
others Vs. Ramayan Singh and Another" reported in (2002) 5
SCC 659 at Para-9 as under:-
"9. Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as
envisaged under Section 401 was to confer upon superior
criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction,
in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from
misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of
proper precautions of (sic or) apparent harshness of treatment
which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due
maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some
underserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the
decision of this Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary) . The
main question which the High Court has to consider in an
application in revision is whether substantial justice has been
done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the applicant
would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions
of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only
question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of
justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have
committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety
in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision
cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is
presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it
completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no
failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction."
22. The revisional power is further explained in the case of
Ramesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at
para. 13 as follows:
"It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified
where:
(i) the decision is grossly erroneous.
(ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law.
(iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on
evidence.
(iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and
(v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."
23. In the case of "Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration",
(1975) 4 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
considering the scope of revisional power, held in paragraph-5
as follows:
"5. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory
jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have
been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the
purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact
reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court
reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying
itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact
reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of
fact was not unreasonable or perverse."
24. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below
have passed well-reasoned judgements considering every
aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of
the petitioner while convicting the petitioner under Sections 448
and 354 of Indian Penal Code. There being no perversity or
illegality in the impugned judgements, no interference is called
for in the conviction of the petitioner.
25. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court
has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentences of
the petitioner in both the offences and in such circumstances, no
further reduction in the sentences is warranted.
26. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is hereby
dismissed.
27. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also
dismissed as not pressed.
30. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the learned court below.
31. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the
learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
