Uday Shankar Jajware vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 526 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Uday Shankar Jajware vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

                                          -1-

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr. Rev. No. 1735 of 2017
                                             ....

               Uday Shankar Jajware                             ...... Petitioner
                                         Versus
               1. The State of Jharkhand
               2. Sharda Nand Khaware
               3. Bala Nand Khaware
               4. Ganga Nath Khaware                            ...... Opp. Parties
                                            -----
             CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                      -----
             For the petitioner          : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
             For the State               : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
             For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 4 : None.
                                            .....
11/18.01.2024      This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2013 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar by which learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar has dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2012 passed by Sri Surya Bhushan Ojha, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with PCR Case No. 411 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No. 109 of 2012 by which, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar has acquitted the opposite party no. 2, Sharda Nand Khaware, opposite party no. 3, Bala Nand Khaware and opposite party no. 4, Ganga Nath Khaware for the charges for committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The complainant-petitioner of this case Uday Shankar Jajware, filed a complaint case on 09.08.2000, in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, bearing P.C.R. Case No. 411/2000, wherein the complainant has alleged that the complainant and accused persons are the neighbours. On the date of occurrence when the complainant engaged his sweeper to clean the septic chamber, then at that time, the accused persons came near the house of the complainant and protested the work of the complainant and asked them not to flow their water upon which all the accused persons became furious and

started abusing the complainant in filthy languages. However, the complainant, then the accused Sharda Nand Khaware assaulted the complainant with lathi, whereas rest of the accused persons assaulted the father of the complainant and others, when they tried to save the complainant. It is alleged that the accused Sharda Nand Khaware forcibly snatched the wrist watch of Titan Company worth Rs. 1400/- from the possession of the complainant. On hulla the neighbours reached and saved them from further assault. The complainant went to Deoghar P.S for lodging the case where the Officer-in-charge assured him for taking legal action and when the police did not turn up on the place of occurrence then complaint case was filed in the court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

4. It is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below and learned Trial Court are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly appreciated the evidence of witnesses. It is submitted that C.W.-4 i.e. the complainant himself has fully supported his case on assault upon him and also assault of his father by the O.P. No. 2 to 4 and O.P. No. 2 committed theft of wrist watch. It is submitted that evidence of CW-4, Uday Shankar Jajware is also corroborated by the evidence of CW-1, Sashinath Khaware, CW-2, Pradip Kr. Mishra, CW-3, Umesh Narone, CW-5, Huro Baliase and CW-6, Sudhir Jajware respectively, however, learned Courts below have failed to consider the same. It is submitted that non-examination of doctor is not fatal as the complainant has alleged about the sustaining injuries at the hand of the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It is submitted that CW-5, Huro Baliase and CW-6, Sudhir Jajware are the eyewitness of the occurrence and they have fully supported and corroborated the case of the complaint-petitioner. It is submitted that evidence of CW-1, Sashinath Khaware, CW-2, Pradip Kr. Mishra, CW-3, Umesh Narone were excluded from the zone of consideration only on the ground that they had been closely related

with the complainant, which is not correct. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court below has also not appreciated the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has also committed wrong by relying upon the evidence of the defence witnesses and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed and necessary order may be passed against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to prove the injury on the person and also upon his father and even doctor was not examined to corroborate the injury report and hence, the learned Courts below have rightly disbelieved the evidence of the complainant i.e. the CW-4. It is submitted that even the injured Gunjan Jajwar, who was present in the Court, has not been examined by the complainant, which makes the case doubtful. It is submitted that complainant has failed to disclose the name of shop from which he had purchased the wrist watch and as such, the learned Courts below have rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for the offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and while acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Court below has correctly held that CW-1, Sashinath Khaware, CW-2, Pradip Kr. Mishra, CW-3, Umesh Narone are the closely related with the complainant and they are the interested witnesses and as such, the learned Appellate Court below has rightly dismissed the appeal and hence, there is no material in this Criminal Revision Application. It is submitted that it is a case of concurrent findings of acquittal passed by the learned Courts below and as such, no revision lies as the evidence of the witnesses has rightly been appreciated by the learned Courts below. Hence, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed.

6. Perused the records of this case and considered the

submissions of both the sides.

7. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the occurrence took place on 03.08.2000, but the complaint was filed on 09.08.2000 i.e. after delay of six days and no plausible explanation has been furnished on behalf of the complainant.

8. It also transpires that the learned Court below has also noticed this fact and the Trial Court has also observed in its judgment that information given to the Superintendent of Police through the Registered Post and waiting for action on the part of the police is also not convincing and even copy of the information, which was given to the Superintendent of Police had not been produced before the learned below.

9. It transpires from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court below that learned Court below has rejected the evidence of CW- 1, Sashinath Khaware that he is the cousin brother of the complainant.

10. It also transpires that the learned Court below has also rejected the evidence of CW-2, Pradip Kumar Mishra and CW-3, Umesh Narone on the ground that they were closely related and associated with the complainant. They also could not say even the name of the shop from which the wrist watch of the complainant was purchased. Although they had supported the case of the prosecution for assault of the complainant and father of the complainant.

11. It further transpires that the learned Court below has rejected the evidence of CW-4, Uday Shankar Jajware i.e. the complainant on the ground that he could not prove any injury report and even the doctor was not examined to support the case of lathi injury by the complainant at the hands of the accused persons. The learned Court below has correctly discussed his evidence and even the learned Court below has observed that Gunjan Jajware, who is the father of the complainant, was not examined on the ground that he is an old aged person, but CW-5, Huro Baliase had admitted during his cross- examination that Gunjan Jajware i.e. the father of the complainant, was present at the time of evidence before the learned Court below and

thus, evidence of the complainant was rightly disbelieved by the learned Court below.

12. It transpires from the impugned judgment passed that the learned Court below has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses on the ground that they failed to produce even the name of the shop from which the Titan Wrist Watch was purchased from the market.

13. From perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court below, it would appear that the learned Appellate Court below has also concurred with the findings of the learned Trial Court below and has held that evidence of P.W.-2, Pradip Kumar Mishra (it should be CW-

2) is completely differs from the other witnesses of the complainant on the question of asking gathering and place of occurrence and has held that CW-2 is not the trustworthy evidence.

It is also observed that P.W.-3, Umesh Narone (it should be CW-3) is the Mausa (Maternal Uncle of the complainant) is an interested witness.

14. The learned Appellate Court below has held that PW-5, Huro Baliase (it should be CW-5) had admitted that he was the bailor of Gunjan Jajware and the said witness has stated that he cannot identify the accused persons, who had come at the place of occurrence and the learned Appellate Court below has also doubted the evidence of PW-5, Huro Baliase (it should be CW-5). Further the learned Appellate Court below has also rejected the evidence of P.W.-6 (it should be CW-6) as he happens to be the brother of the complainant and he himself admitted that though he has sustained injury in his stomach and chest, but he had not got himself treated by any doctor.

15. It is also evident that the complainant failed to examine Doctor, who had treated the complainant and his father Gunjan Jajwar.

16. This is a case of concurrent finding of order of acquittal passed by the learned courts below.

17. Thus, this Court also finds that the observation made by the learned Appellate Court and learned Trial Court below are correct and

as such, no interference is required by this Court and the judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2013 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar and the judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2012 passed by Sri Surya Bhushan Ojha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with PCR Case No. 411 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No. 109 of 2012 are upheld.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 1735 of 2017 is, hereby, dismissed.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/