Jharkhand High Court
Madan Prasad Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 1 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
Madan Prasad Bhagat, son of late Udit Narayan Bhagat, resident
of Mahgama, P.O. & P.S. Mahgama, District Godda (Jharkhand)
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P
.....
Order No.12/ Dated:01.03.2024
1. The present Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated
09.12.2015 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge II,
Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2011/32 of 2013 whereby and
whereunder, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda
has been pleased to partly allow the appeal with modification in
awarded sentences by releasing the petitioner after due admonition and
uphold the judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda by which the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal code
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
rigorous imprisonment for three months for committing offence
punishable under Section 447 of the Indian penal Code with further
direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision petition is that a
complaint petition was filed by the complainant-Kailu Hembrom,
alleging therein that on 22.12.1998, at about 10:00 am , at village
2 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
Karmu, P.S. Mahgama, District Godda, the land pertaining to plot No.
450, Mouza Karmu, J.B. No. 40, area 04 Kathas, recorded in last
gantzer survey settlement Parcha, is in the name of one Lakhan
Hemvbrom, Ramjeet Hembram, Sukul Hembrom and others. Due to
some family arrangement, the said land came into cultivation and
possession of Kailu Hembram, grandfather of the complainant. After
his death, the said land came under the possession of father of the
complainant-Yogendra Hembrom. Thereafter, it came into cultivating
possession of the complainant, who had been cultivating the said land.
The complainant also planted wheat crop in the aforesaid land the said
wheat plant grown up. It has been alleged that on the date of
occurrence, the accused persons armed with lathi, Bhala, Farsa came
there, forming unlawful assembly, and trespass in the aforesaid land
and started uprooting the plant of wheat.
3. It has further been alleged that the complainant, who was standing near
the land, protested them and thereafter, altercation took place. On
hearing Halla, the witnesses and villagers came there and they
intervened in the matter, but the accused persons did not pay any heed
and they started assaulting the complainant with slaps and fists. It has
further been alleged that the accused persons uprooted all wheat plants
and thereby causing loss to the complainant of Rs. 1,000/-. It has further
been alleged that accused Ambika and Ramadhar Bhagat took away
goats of the complainant, which were worth Rs. 1500/- and tied in a
Khutta near the land. On the basis of enquiry evidence of complainant,
the charge for the offence punishable u/s 323, 427, 379, 417, 148, 447
3 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. has been framed which has been
read over and explained to accused persons for which, they pleaded not
guilty and claimed for the trial. The complainant has examined 5
witnesses altogether inorder to prove and substantiate the charges
leveled against the accused persons. They are Nobel Baski P.W. 1,
Ganga Dayal Mandal P.W. 2, Hopna Marandi P.W. 3, Kailu Hembram
P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 Chaitanya Pd. Sah.
4. On the other hand, the defence has examined four witnesses in his
defence. They are Ramratan Rajjak (D.W. 1), Ramesh Pd. P.W. 2, Shiv
Pujan Bhagat D.W. 3 and Tarkeshwar Mandal D.W. 4. Apart the role
evidence of aforesaid defence witnesses has filed two documents which
are exhibited as ext. A. and B. Exhibit A is certified copy of extract
Khatian of Karun Mouza and ext. B is paper of exchange.
5. The petitioner along with other nine co-accused persons held guilty for
the offences under Section 147, 323, 427 & 447 IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section
147, 323, 427 IPC and three months SI for offence under Section 447
IPC. Out of 10 accused persons only two, namely, Madan Prasad
Bhagat present petitioner and Kailu Hembram have filed an appeal
before the Sessions Court which was dismissed on merits but with
modification in sentence and appellant/petitioner extended the benefit
of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released after due
admonition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial
court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record
4 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
and ignored the materials contradiction appearing in the evidence of
witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was
no specific overt act leveled against the petitioner but he has been
dragged in this case on the principle of mob violence. He has no
concern with the alleged occurrence and no specific allegation of
assault or any other offences has been alleged to be committed by him.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti has
vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner
and submitted that both the trial court and first appellate court have
tested the evidence available on record and there is concurrent finding
proving the guilt of the petitioner. However, he was released after due
admonition. It is further submitted that in case of attack by mob at least
in this case, 10 accused persons were forming unlawful assembly
encroached upon the land of the complainant and in furtherance of the
common object assaulted the informant party. Therefore, it is not
possible for the prosecution to pressurizely point out the specific
allegation against each and every accused person. There is sufficient
evidence on record that present petitioner was also member of the
unlawful assembly and was present and participated in the alleged
occurrence. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court
record along with impugned judgments and consider the factual matrix
giving rise to this revision.
5 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
10.However, so far the scope of interference, though criminal revision
against the conviction is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in center
of its decision has held that the scope of interference in revision is
extremely narrow. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC
204, has held paras 10 & 11 as under:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it
is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at
by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence
brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is
not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the
scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the
regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits
of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the
Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the
case to reverse those findings. 11. This Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State
of Assam [Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015] , while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of
evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paras 9, 10 and
11 of the judgment as under : (SCC pp. 333-34) "9. So far as Issue 1 is
concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju
Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given
concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has
been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the
courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of
6 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016
reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found
to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of
appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered.
Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by
reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings
on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are
exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal
practice. '9. ... The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is
one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of
fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.'
(Vide Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad [Sriniwas Ram Kumar v.
Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136] , SCC p. 139, para 9)"
11.Since, the petitioner has not raised any pure question of law or mixed
question of law and facts which are exceptional in nature required to be
entered into merit of this case by appreciating the evidence adduced
before the trial court. Therefore, this court is restraining itself to disturb
the finding of the conviction by both the courts below.
12.So far order of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already been
released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offender
Act, as such no interference in the impugned judgment is required.
13.Thus, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit is dismissed.
14. Let the copy of this order along with L.C.R. be sent to court below.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K/
