Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 597 of 2016
-------
Shankar Prasad Singh ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : None
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P
--------
09/ Dated 23.02.2023
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P appearing on behalf of the State.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has remained
unrepresented on several dates. This revision application is pending since 2016.
Accordingly, this revision application is being disposed of after perusal of the
materials available on record and after hearing the learned Spl.P.P.
This revision application has been filed by the petitioner Shankar Prasad
Singh against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.198 of
2011, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 10.05.2011 passed by Sri Kankn Pattadar, learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad holding the petitioner guilty of offence under
Sections 342, 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal code and thereby, released the
petitioner, giving him the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act by
releasing him after due admonition.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the
informant Dr. S.N.Baidhya, alleging therein that on 24.01.2005 at about 1:00 P.M,
the petitioner along-with other accused persons entered into his office and started
abusing him. It is further alleged that the petitioner also slapped him and due to
which, his spectacle was broken.
The police found the occurrence to be true and submitted the charge-sheet
under Sections 448, 341, 342, 323, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate
Court have come to the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
Sri S.N. Baidya, the informant examined as P.W.2, has supported the
allegation made out in his written report and has stated that on 24.01.2005, the
petitioner and others had entered into his office and assaulted him, due to which,
his spectacle was broken. He also sustained injuries.
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh P.W.1, who is a clerk in the office of the
informant has stated that on Hulla, he went to the office of the informant. He saw
that the informant was in the state of shock and his spectacle was broken and the
petitioner Shankar Prasad Singh was standing there. There was altercation going
on between him and the informant.
Dr. Naresh Prasad, P.W.3 had examined the informant and had found the
following injury on his person: -
(1) Hematoma near left eye ½" x 1/4".
According to this witness, the injury was simple in nature, caused by hard
and blunt substance. He has proved the injury report which is Exhibit -3.
From perusal of the injury report, it appears that the oral testimony of Dr.
Naresh Prasad is fully corroborated by the findings in injury report ( Exhibit-3).
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the
informant and other witnesses had supported the occurrence that the petitioner had
assaulted the informant, due to which, he sustained injury and his spectacle was
broken.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of both
the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court regarding the guilt of
the petitioner.
Petitioner has rightly been released on admonition after giving him the
benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act.
This revision application is dismissed.
Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
