Jharkhand High Court
Shatrughan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2015
1.Shatrughan Prasad, s/o late Beni Prasad
2.Om Prakash
3.Santosh Kumar
Both sons of Shatrughan Prasad
All residents of Birsa Chowk, Birsa Nagar, PO&PS Jagarnathpur, District
Ranchi ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : None
-------
Order No. 03/Dated: 09th December 2022
Against the judgment dated 31st May 2014 passed in GR Case
No. 3764 of 2008, corresponding to TR No. 612 of 2014, arising out of
Jagarnathpur PS Case No. 167 of 2008, the petitioners preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 145 of 2014 which has been dismissed by an order dated 25 th
April 2015.
2. In GR Case No. 3764 of 2008, the petitioners faced the trial on
the charge under sections 323, 341 and 504 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).
3. In the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses to support
the aforesaid charge against the petitioners and the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by judgment dated 31st May 2014 has held that
the charge under sections 323, 341 read with section 34 IPC has been
proved against the accused.
4. Keeping into consideration that Shatrughan Prasad who was the
main accused had attained the age of 71 years by that time, the trial Judge
ordered release of the convicts under section 4 of the Probation of the
Offenders Act, 1958, on their executing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount.
5. The appellate Court while dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 145
of 2014 has held that there is no material contradiction in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and the prosecution was successful in producing
cogent and consistent evidence to prove the charge under sections 323, 341
read with section 34 IPC.
6. Now, on powers of the High Court while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, the judgment in "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath
Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC 452 may usefully be noticed
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"5. .... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for
and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting
miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated
even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well
as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is
brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. ..."
7. Besides the above, on the petitioners complying with the
direction of the Court below to furnish bond with an undertaking that they
would maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of three months, the
present criminal revision has been rendered infructuous.
8. In the present criminal revision petition, no new plea has been
raised by the petitioners. They have rather produced a copy of the order
dated 20th May 2015 in GR Case No. 3764 of 2008 by which the trial Judge
has accepted the bail bonds furnished by them.
9. Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2015 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Tanuj/-
