Jharkhand High Court
Md. Tazuddin @ Tazuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
Cr. Revision No.742 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 742 of 2010
Md. Tazuddin @ Tazuddin Ansari ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gulshan Biwi ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. R. K. Singh, Advocate
For the State : M/s. S. K. Dubey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate
-----
C.A.V. on 05.01.2024 Pronounced on 12.01.2024
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this criminal revision
application against the judgment dated 15.07.2010, passed by Sri
Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Godda (As his
lordship was then) in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2009, whereby
and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Godda dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner and upheld judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 09.12.2009 passed by Sri R. B. Pal, learned
S.D.J.M., Godda, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under
section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R.
Case No. 266 of 2005 and thereby sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of
complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi,
alleging there in that on 13.08.2004, she was sleeping alone in her
house when the petitioner Md. Tazuddin @ Tazuddin Ansari came
there and caught hold of her and when she tried to raise alarm, he
gagged her mouth and attempted to ravish her.
In order to prove its case, the opposite party no. 2
has adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available
on the record both the learned trial court as well as the learned
appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the
guilt of the petitioner.
The opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi has been
examined as CW2. She has stated that there was dispute between
her and the accused persons since last four years, the accused
person has assaulted her. She has stated that at about 04:00 A.M.,
she was sleeping in her house when the petitioner came there and
ravished her. He had gagged her mouth. He was there for 5-6
minutes and thereafter he fled away. Thereafter, she raised alarm on
which witnesses came there. She has been cross-examined at length,
in her cross examination she has stated that her husband works in
Mumbai. She has further stated that the petitioner is a married
person. She has admitted that there was land dispute between the
petitioner and her mother-in-law.
Bibi Sugiya C.W.1 has stated that on the morning of
date of occurrence, the opposite party No. 2 Gulshan Biwi told her
that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. It is alleged that she is
not an eye witness to the occurrence.
From the perusal of the statement of the opposite
party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi. It is apparent that she has not stated the
date of occurrence. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that from the complaint petition, it transpires
that occurrence took place on 13.08.2004 and the present case was
instituted on 23.04.2005 and in order to explain the delay, the
occurrence has been shown to be continuous in nature. It was
submitted that enmity between the family members of the opposite
party no. 2, and the family members of the petitioner is admitted.
The statement of the opposite party no. 2 Gulshan
Biwi that the petitioner had entered her house and outraged her
modesty does not inspire much confidence in the background of the
relationship between the parties. There is inordinate unexplained
delay of eight months in lodging of the complaint case.
In view of the aforesaid fact; I am inclined to give
the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial court and so affirmed by the learned
appellate court is set aside.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of
appreciation for M/s. Abhilash Kumar who has very ably
assisted this court during the hearing of this revision application.
Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay
Rs.5,000/- to him as remuneration for his services rendered as
Amicus Curiae
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
