Jharkhand High Court
Priyanshu Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acq. Appeal (S.J.) No. 65 of 2022
---
Priyanshu Devi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Lal
3. Rinku Lal ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.Deo, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP
---
12/05.12.2022: Heard the parties.
This acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 30.09.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.83 of 2019 by
learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi.
It appears that FIR being Sadar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.17 of
2016 has been lodged on 04.07.2016 for the alleged occurrence dated
16.06.2016 to the effect that at about 9.00 p.m., appellant has been
disrobed by her own in-laws.
On the basis of said FIR, investigation has been done and the
police found the allegation true and accordingly, the accused were charge
sheeted to which cognizance has been taken. Accordingly, they were
charged by the court for the offence under Sections 354 (B) and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven
witnesses have been examined.
P.W.1-Bikash Kumar, P.W.2-Jitender Kumar and P.W.4-
Shahedar Kumar Shrivastav are brothers of the informant.
P.Ws.3 and 5 are the passer by at the time of occurrence.
P.W.6 is the informant herself. P.W.7-Margeret Tirkey is the
Investigation Officer.
The prosecution story has been evidenced saying that P.Ws.1
and 2 are the witnessed that the informant has accompanied the accused
persons and P.Ws. 3 and 7 are the witnessed that the alleged incident has
taken place and P.W.3 has offered mobile for calling P.W.4, who is the
brother of the informant. On such, evidence, learned trial court has
convicted the accused vide order dated 12.03.2019.
Against the said conviction order, the accused has preferred an
appeal before the appellate court being Cr. Appeal No.83 of 2019. The
appellate court has examined all the witnesses. Paragraph-16 of the said
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"16. On perusal of the entire evidence available on the case record, I find
that there is previous enmity between both the parties as has been
admitted by the complainant (P.W.6) in paragraph-24 of her cross-
examination that she has already lodged complaint case against the
appellants in Aara District Court and this occurrence is alleged to have
taken place on 16.06.16 at about 9..30 P.M. whereas the Formal FIR
(Ext.3) reveals that the FIR has been registered on 04.07.16 which is
delayed by 20 days and no explanation for the same has been given from
the side of the prosecution and at the same time, the complainant has
failed to tell the mobile cell phone number of her brother Vikash (P.W.1)
to whom she is alleged to have made a phone call from the P.O. land,
from the mobile cell phone of a passer by, just after the alleged
occurrence and consequently her brothers (P.W.1 and 2) are alleged to
have reached the P.O. and thus, all these facts, circumstances and
evidences make the entire prosecution story highly doubtful and
unbelievable and so the prosecution has failed to establish its case
against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts which the ld court
below has failed to properly appreciate and pass the impugned judgment
and order which is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be
acquitted u/s 354B IPC."
From the above, it is evident that the parties are in litigating
terms and there was matrimonial dispute between them. Further it
appears that the court below has passed the judgment of conviction
without corroborating the oral evidence.
The appellate court has found that it is not safe to sustain
conviction in absence of corroboration by material evidence and as such,
the appellate court has acquitted the accused from the charges.
Counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal
on the ground that once there is evidence, the acquittal by the appellate
court, in absence of corroboration, is per se illegal, and not sustainable in
law. Corroboration is not always sine qua non and there is no reason
assigned for disbelieving the oral testimony of the witnesses.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment
of acquittal and it has been submitted that the parties are in litigating
terms and there was matrimonial dispute between them. The false
accusation cannot be ruled out. The appellate court has gone into the
entire circumstances of the case, finding no corroboration, has given the
benefit of doubt to the accused and it requires no interference by this
Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, it appears that the parties are in litigating terms and they are
related by marriage. The prosecution story has been proved only by oral
witness, although corroborative material are there as per the prosecution
story. The appellate court has taken into consideration that P.W.4 has
been called from the mobile cell obtained from P.W.3 (one of the passer
by) and even on asking, the informant/victim could not tell the mobile
cell number of her brother-Bikash Kumar to whom call has been made.
When a call has been made from mobile number of a strange person then
number has to be dialled because it does not exist in the phone book.
Once number has dialled, it was in the memory of the informant. Thus,
prosecution story has been disbelieved and doubted by the appellate
court. If there is any doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit has to be
extended to the accused.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to
entertain present acquittal appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby,
dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Ravi/
