Jangli Manjhain vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 314 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 499 of 2007
                          ---------

     Jangli Manjhain                                  ..... Petitioner
                                      Versus
     1.State of Jharkhand
     2. Jagarnath Pathak.
     3.Bhola Pathak.
     4.Bijay Pathak.                              ..... Opposite Parties
                                      ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, APP For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Adv.

---------

07/Dated: 18th January, 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment

dated 30.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ist-cum- Special Judge, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 747 of 1999;

whereby the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were aquitted under

Sections 448, 341, 323, 307, 452, 384, 380, 506 and 34 IPC and

under Section 3(i)(iv) (v), 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the learned trial court has not considered the

evidence properly and acquitted the opposite parities nos. 2 to 4

though there were serious allegations under Sections 448, 341,

323, 307, 452, 380, 384, 506 & 34 IPC and under section

3(i)(iv)(v) and 3 (1) (x) of the S.C. S.T.Act.

Learned counsel further submits that after going through

the deposition it clearly transpires that there were specific

allegations against the opposite parties, however, for the reasons

known to the learned trial court the opposite parties have been

acquitted.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. as well as learned counsel for the

opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 supports the judgment and submits

that there is no error in the judgment of learned trial court and

cogent reasons have been assigned in acquitting these

petitioners.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the documents available on record it appears that

on the one hand the matter relates to civil dispute with regard to

signing of an agreement for sale and on the other hand the

learned trial court had dealt each and every evidence, both oral

and documentary, meticulously and came to the finding that all

the accused persons i.e. O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 are not guilty for the

charges and ultimately acquitted them. It further transpires that

learned trial court has taken note of the fact that the informant

herself was not trustworthy and none of the witnesses were

enough to prove the charges against the opposite parties.

Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to indicate

any perversity in the finding so as to interfere with the

impugned judgment.

6. Consequently the judgment of acquittal is hereby,

sustained, as a result both these applications stand dismissed.

7. Let the lower court record (in both these cases) be sent

back to the court concerned forthwith.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to court concerned

forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/