Arman Mansuri vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4555 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Arman Mansuri vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2023

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Criminal Revision No. 973 of 2018
                          ---------

Arman Mansuri ..... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

---------

Reserved on 09.11.2023 Delivered on 15.12.2023

11/09.11.2023 This criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.6.2018 passed in S.T. No. 528 of 2017 by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The police has instituted Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017 for the offence under Section 147/148/149/152/153/332/333/337/338/307/353 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 05.06.2017, approximately 500 people from Hindu community and 500 from Muslim community, being armed with deadly weapons, had assembled against each other and despite request from the police to calm down they started pelting stone against each other and also upon the police due to which several persons including the officer-in-charge became injured. Thereafter, the police had instituted F.I.R. against 62 persons including

this petitioner, who are named in the F.I.R. and also against 100-150 unknown persons.

3. Heard Mrs. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is a student of B.Com in Marwari College, Ranchi at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is added mechanically as he is the resident of the said village. It is submitted that the incident took place on 05.6.2017 and the F.I.R. was registered on 06.06.2017. It is submitted that on 06.06.2017, the police again went to the village Sukurhuttu and prepared the list of the name of the villagers residing there and thereafter the names of this petitioner came in the F.I.R. It is submitted that even as per the case diary and injury report submitted by the Doctor, there is no specific allegation against this petitioner and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also enclosed the photocopies of the mark sheet issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the name of the petitioner to the supplementary affidavit, as Annexure SA/1 series.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments:

1. UNION OF INIDA Versus PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL AND ANOTHER reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4,

2. STATE OF ORISSA Versus DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported in 2005(1) SCC 568 and

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus L. MUNISWAMY AND OTHERS reported in 1977(2) SCC 699.

5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 227 Cr.P.C. was incorporated to save an accused from prolonged harassment and also from long protracted criminal trial. It is submitted that in the entire case diary, the witnesses have merely stated about the presence of the petitioner and no specific overt act has been attributed against him and as such the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted and this Criminal Revision may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that this Criminal Revision application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. as being indulged into anti-social activity. It is submitted that the several witnesses, whose names are mentioned in the relevant para numbers of the case diary, have supported the allegation against this petitioner for disturbing communal harmony by having been involved in the occurrence. It is submitted that the witnesses, namely Dinesh Chandra Hansda, Hawaldar Lal Baitha, Rajiv Ranjan, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge,

Imran Ahmad, Sub-Inspector, Subodh Kumar-Reserve Guard, Deepak Gidh-Reserve Guard, Jitendra Kumar-

Reserve Guard, Santosh Pandey, Driver and Etwa Pahan- Driver, whose names have been mentioned in Para No.s 13, 20, 23, 28, 33, 34, 50, 52 & 53, have supported the presence of the petitioner and also supported the allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the police has also submitted chargesheet against several persons including this petitioner. It is further submitted that meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses is not required to be considered and hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this criminal revision may be dismissed.

7. Perused the lower court records and considered the submission of both the sides.

8. It appears from the F.I.R. that the occurrence took place on 05.06.2017 in the morning, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.06.2017 against 63 persons including this petitioner and also against 150-200 known persons.

9. It appears that certain witnesses have supported the allegation against this petitioner for disturbing communal harmony by having been involved in the occurrence.

10. It appears that the witnesses Dinesh Chandra Hansda, Hawaldar Lal Baitha, Rajiv Ranjan, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Imran Ahmad, Sub- Inspector, Subodh Kumar-Reserve Guard, Deepak Gidh- Reserve Guard, Jitendra Kumar-Reserve Guard, Santosh

Pandey, Driver and Etwa Pahan-Driver have stated about the presence of the petitioner.

However, all the above witnesses are police personnel.

11. Para 47 of the case diary contains the injury report of the injured Rajiv Ranjan, Officer-in-Charge, Kanke Police Station, which shows that two simple injuries were found on the hand of the injured, however, the F.I.R. reveals that the said Officer-in-Charge has sustained head injuries.

12. It appears that there is conflict in the F.I.R. & Case Diary on the point of injury sustained by the Officer-in-Charge.

13. It has been held in the case of STATE OF ORISSA Versus DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported in 2005(1) SCC 568 as follows:

"Para 9:- Further, the scheme of the Code when examined in the light of the provisions of the old Code of 1898, makes the position more clear. In the old Code, there was no provision similar to Section 227. Section 227 was incorporated in the Code with a view to save the accused from the prolonged harassment which is a necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. It is calculated to eliminate harassment to accused persons when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements. If the evidence even if fully accepted cannot show that the accused committed the

offence, the accused deserves to be discharged............................................................ ................................................................................"

14. It has been held in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 at page 704

10. On the other hand, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondents in Vadilal Panchal v. D.D. Ghadigaonkar [AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499 : 62 Bom LR 915] and Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashra [AIR 1972 SC 545 : 1972 Cri LJ 3291972 SCC (Cri) 495] show that it is wrong to say that at the stage of framing charges the court cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As observed in the latter case, the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial. In Vadilal Panchal case, Section 203 of the old Code was under

consideration, which provided that the Magistrate could dismiss a complaint if after considering certain matters mentioned in the section there was in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. To an extent Section 327 of the new

Code contains an analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It was held by this Court, while considering the true scope of Section 203 of the old Code that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must apply his judicial mind to the material on which he had to form his judgment. These decisions show that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible.

15. It appears that the learned Court below, while rejecting the Discharge petition, had merely observed that the witnesses have taken the name of the accused petitioner.

16. Thus, it is evident that the learned court below has not properly appreciated the statement of the witnesses and the injury report of the informant, which is in conflict with the F.I.R. as it shows the injury on the hand of the injured while in the F.I.R. allegation is made that the injured had sustained head injury. Further, no specific overt act had been attributed to this petitioner.

17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the

case and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order dated 07.6.2018 passed in S.T. No. 528 of 2017 by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi is set aside in the interest of justice and the case is remitted to the learned Court below/or his Successor Court for hearing the matter afresh.

18. Thus, this Criminal Revision application is allowed with the observation mentioned above and stands disposed of.

The Court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.