Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2022
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 160 of 2011
---
Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.01.2011
passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Giridih in
Complaint Case No.1000 of 2005 (T.R. No.1202 of 2006).
---
1. Sukhdeo Mahto
2. Subodh Mahto
3. Kunjo Mahto
4. Janki Mahto
5. Bishun Mahto
6. Jagdish Mahto
7. Bandhan Rana
8. Baldeo Rana
9. Tejo Rana ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Roy, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
By Court: Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 27.01.2011 passed by learned 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Giridih in Complaint Case No.1000
of 2005 (T.R. No.1202 of 2006) whereby and whereunder, the appellants
have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 452 and 380 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i)(v) (x) of the S.C./S.T. Act and
have been maximum sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years.
3. Criminal law has been put into motion by filing Complaint
Case No.1000 of 2005 (T.R. No.1202 of 2006) and the same has been
committed to the Court of Sessions on 07.08.2006. The court has taken
cognizance and the appellants have been charged under Sections 147,
452, 323, 341, 380 & 427 IPC and Section 3 (i) (v) (x) of the S.C./S.T.
Act, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. It has been alleged that the accused persons on 17.07.2005
armed with weapon started demolishing newly constructed house of
Rameshwar Dushad, existing over the Plot No.785, Khata No.25 and that
has been protested by these appellants upon which they have been
assaulted and 50 Kg of rice has been taken away with certain articles.
5. To substantiate the prosecution case, the complainant has
produced altogether five witnesses.
P.W.1 is Sewa Devi, P.W.2 is Prakash Paswan, P.W.3
is Jaswa Devi and P.W.4 is Suresh Paswan. They all
have supported the allegation made in the complaint
petition. P.W.5-Bansi Dushad is complainant and he
has deposed that he does not want to prosecute the
present case.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants and
Amicus Curiae that for the alleged incident dated 17.07.2005, an FIR has
been lodged being Birni P.S. Case No.71 of 2005 (G.R. No.1277 of 2005
and T.R. No.466 of 2009) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and
they have been acquitted on conclusion of the trial vide order dated
23.03.2009 and it has been brought on record as Ext.A.
7. It has been submitted that the present appellants have suffered
twice as for the same incident, two proceedings have been initiated and
they have already been acquitted in Birni P.S. Case No.71 of 2005 and
that fact although has been brought to the notice of the court below in the
present complaint case, but that has not been discussed.
8. It has been submitted that all the witnesses are the family
members and there is no corroboration of the incident. The complainant
has not given any statement supporting the allegation. Thus, conviction
of the appellants are solely on the basis of the oral deposition of P.Ws.1
to 4 which does not find any corroboration from any corner.
9. Learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment of the conviction
and it has been submitted that the deposition of P.Ws. 1 to 4 clearly
supported the allegations made in the complaint. There is evidence on the
record, justifying the conviction.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, Amicus
Curiae and learned A.P.P. for the State and on perusal of the record, it
appears that the criminal case has been initiated on the basis of the
complaint and for the same set of incident, there was an FIR and after,
facing trial, the appellants have been acquitted vide judgment dated
23.03.2009. In the present case, the complainant has not deposed in
favour of the allegation. Other witnesses are oral witness but there is no
corroboration of the incident, which took place at the place of occurrence.
11. Considering the above facts, this court finds that there is no
sufficient evidence on record, justifying the conviction of the appellants
for the offence as mentioned above.
12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
27.01.2011 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Giridih in Complaint Case No.1000 of 2005 (T.R. No.1202 of
2006) is, hereby, set aside.
13. Since all the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged
from the liability of their bail bonds.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 6th December, 2022
Ravi/NAFR/
