Jharkhand High Court
Gulabchand Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 557 of 2009
-------
Gulabchand Yadav ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No.726 of 2009
-------
1. Lala Yadav @ Lalindra Yadav
2. Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kr. Yadav
3. Sanjay Yadav .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... ..... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P [Cr.Rev. No.557/09]
Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P [Cr.Rev.No.726/09]
--------
12/ Dated 04.09.2023
Heard the parties.
Both these revision applications arise out of the same impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, both these revision applications
are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioner Gulabchand Yadav in Cr. Revision No. 557 of 2009 and the
petitioners Lala Yadav @ Lalindra Yadav, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kr. Yadav
and Sanjay Yadav in Cr. Revision No.726 of 2009 have filed this revision
application against the judgment dated 29.05.2009, passed by Mohammed Kasim,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.9, Giridih in Cr. Appeal
No.114/2006, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.9, Giridih dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2006, passed by Sri
Taufique Ahmed, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Giridih in G.R. Case
No.942/2003, arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 112/2003, holding the
petitioners Gulabchand Yadav, Lala Yadav @ Lalindra Yadav, Santosh Yadav @
Santosh Kr. Yadav and Sanjay Yadav guilty for the offences under Sections 341,
323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing them to undergo
R.I for one year for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code
alongwith fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were
further directed to undergo S.I for three months and R.I for six months for the
offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for one month for the
offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the
informant Manju Devi, alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, she had
gone to fetch water from tube well situated outside the house of the petitioner
Gulabchand Yadav. All the accused persons intercepted her and told her that they
will not allow her to take water from the tube well. It is alleged that the petitioner
Gulabchand Yadav fell her on the ground and tore her blouse and then pressed her
breast. The accused persons are also said to have assaulted her sister-in-law and
daughter-in-law, due to which, they sustained injuries.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence.
On the basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned Trial
Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to the concurrent finding
regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears
that the victim has been examined as P.W.1. She has supported her case as made
out in her written report. She has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence
between 11:00 to 12:00 Noon, she had gone to fetch water from tube-well,
situated outside the house of the petitioner Gulabchand Yadav. All the accused
persons intercepted her. She has stated that the petitioner Gulabchand Yadav fell
her on the ground and caught hold of her breast and told her that he will outrage
her modesty to such an extent that she will not be able to show her face to anyone.
When her sister-in-law and daughter-in-law came to her rescue, they were also
assaulted. She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she
has stated that at the time of occurrence, she had gone to tube-well alone. She has
further stated that after five minutes of the occurrence, her daughter-in-law came
to the place of occurrence.
Bhikhari Devi P.W.2 has supported the prosecution case and stated that on
the date and time of the occurrence, the accused persons had assaulted the victim.
Gita Devi P.W.3 has also supported the prosecution case and stated that the
accused persons had assaulted the victim and the accused Gulabchand Yadav had
torn her blouse. She has stated that other accused persons assaulted the victim,
causing injuries. She has further stated that the accused persons also assaulted
Ruknini Devi the sister-in-law of the victim. When her daughter-in-law Anita
Devi came to her rescue, she was also assaulted. In her cross-examination, she has
stated that the accused persons were assaulting the victim by slap and fists and her
blouse was torn from front side.
Dr. Rajesh Kumar, who has been examined as P.W.5 had found simple
injuries on the injured persons.
Birendra Pathak P.W.6 is the I.O of this case. He has stated that the victim
had told him that the accused persons had tore her blouse. He has given the
description at the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination at paragraph-11,
he has stated that the victim has not stated in her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C that the petitioner Gulabchand Yadav had caught hold of her breast.
From perusal of the statement of Dev Nandan Yadav D.W.1, it appears that
this witness has stated that no occurrence had taken place as alleged. From the
statement of Amar Nath Ram D.W.2, it transpires that he has stated that no
occurrence had taken place and the victim has implicated the petitioners due to
previous enmity.
From perusal of the injury report of the injured, which are Exhibit-6 series,
it appears that the victim and two other ladies had sustained injuries which are
simple in nature.
From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the victim and her witnesses
have supported the prosecution case and have stated that the petitioners had
assaulted the victim, her sister-in-law and daughter-in-law, due to which, they
sustained injuries. Victim has specifically stated that the petitioner Gulabchand
Yadav tore her blouse and caught hold of her breast. This averment has also been
made in her written statement. The oral account of the prosecution witnesses is
supported by the medical evidence.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case against all the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. I further come to the finding that
the prosecution has also proved its case against the petitioner Gulabchand Yadav
for outraging the modesty of the victim under Section 354 of the Indian Penal
Code.
There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners Lala Yadav @
Lalindra Yadav, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kr. Yadav and Sanjay Yadav shared
common intention with the petitioner Gulabchand Yadav, to outrage the modesty
of the victim. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
holding these petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian
Penal Code is set aside. However their judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by learned trial court for offences under Sections 323 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the petitioner
Gulabchand Yadav guilty of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the
Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
The period already undergone by the aforesaid petitioners during the trial
and the pendency of these revision applications is ordered to be set off.
Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.557/2009 is dismissed and Cr.Revision
No.726/2009 is partly allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
