Jharkhand High Court
Manju Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1666 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
13.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 7, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2001 ]
Manju Devi, Wife of Babu Lal Prasad @ Chauhan,
resident of Pandedih, P.S. and District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1238 of 2006
Punam Devi, Wife of Late Baleshwar Poddar, resident of
10 number Angar Path, P.O. & P.S. - Angarpathra,
District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate.
[In both cases].
For the Respondent : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A. (SJ) No. 1666/2006]
Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A. (SJ) No. 1238/2006]
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Fahad Allam and
Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the
State.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated
31.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 384
of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have
been held guilty for the offence under Sections 341,
332 and 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of
the I.P.C., R.I. of six months for the offence under
Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. of one year for the
offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a
narrow compass is that on 24.03.2000 at about 10:30
A.M., when the informant, who is ASI of Katras Police
Station along with Constable No. 1179 reached on a
road in front of No. 40 Modidih Coal Dump Chjala with
relation to the investigation of a case bearing Katras
(Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2000 and was recording
the statement of witness of aforesaid case, all of a
sudden, the accused persons came there and
wrongfully restrained the informant. The accused
persons told the informant that the people of this place
have filed the case against them and they will not allow
the informant to record the statement of witnesses
there and the accused persons also gave threatening to
kill the persons, who will give statements as witness
against them. Thereupon, the informant told the
accused persons not to take law in their hand. The
accused Shanti Devi (now she is dead and her appeal
was abated vide order dated 04.08.2022) gave a stick
blow on the wrist of informant resulting into injury on
his wrist and blood came out from the injury. Accused
Manju Devi and Punam Devi caught and pressed
scrotum of informant with an intention to commit his
murder. Accused Shanti Devi dishonestly took away
HMT Pilot wrist watch of informant without the
consent of the informant. The informant and Constable
Ram Murti Choudhary made noise and on that noise
many labourers of West Modidih Coal Dump came
there and saved the informant.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Katras
(Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2000 was registered
against the accused for the offence under Sections
341, 323, 333, 307, 379, 353, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323,
332, 307, 379, 353, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C. against all
the accused persons and accordingly, cognizance for
the aforesaid offence was taken by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been
framed for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 353,
337 and 307/34 of the I.P.C., to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The statements of all the accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and they
have denied the occurrence committed by them and
told that they are innocent.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
rest accused persons, altogether six witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced by the
prosecution.
Exhibit-1 : Written Report for lodging FIR.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Shyam Kishore
Singh on the Written Report.
Exhibit-1/2 : Endorsement on registration of
Written Report.
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report.
8. However, in defence, only one witness was examined
on behalf of accused.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellants guilty for
the offence under Sections 341, 332 and 353 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2006,
this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of
the appellants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the
impugned judgment and order has submitted that the
learned court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the evidence available on record. The story
projected by the prosecution regarding assault
committed against the ASI of Police by the appellants
is preferably false story and manufactured with
intention to harass the poor labourers ladies. The real
fact is that the informant police officer was trying to
take work without wages from the appellants and
putting pressure upon them and upon denial of
which, they have been implicated in this case. No
offence under Sections 341, 332 and 353 of the I.P.C.
is made out in this case. Wrist watch was not seized
and no seizure list was prepared. The injury sustained
by the informant is also superficial in nature. The very
genesis of the occurrence has not been proved by the
prosecution as to in which case, the informant has
gone to the place of occurrence for the purpose of
conducting investigation and he has also failed to
disclose the name of witness, to whom he was
instigating at the time of alleged occurrence. The
injuries sustained by the informant also does not
corroborate the manner of occurrence. No specific
overt act has been attributed against the present
appellants, as such, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is
fit to be set aside and allowing this appeal.
12. In alternative, it is argued by learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants have not been extended
the benefit of Section 3 / 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act without recording any reasons, to which
they deserve. The appellants have no criminal
background and never convicted for any offence.
13. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants and has submitted that the trial court
has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and
appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record and arrived at right conclusion
holding the appellant to be guilty for the offences
charged against him and adequately passed the order
of sentence. There is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order, which calling for any
interference, by way of this appeal, which is devoid of
merit and fit to be dismissed.
14. I have gone through the record of the case along with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence in the light of contention raised on behalf of
both the sides.
15. In order to substantiate the prosecution story and
charges levelled against the accused persons, the
informant has been examined as P.W.-1, whose
evidence clearly reveals that he has failed to state the
name of the witness with whom he was interrogated
at the time of occurrence and in which case, he had
gone to conduct investigation is also not mentioned.
No other witnesses have been able to fully corroborate
the version of the informant. The injuries sustained
by the informant also appears to be abrasion and
body ache only. The prosecution story has not been
corroborated from any independent witness. Under
such circumstances, the plea of defence that these
poor appellants working as labourers have been
falsely implicated, since they have declined to provide
service without wages at the instance of police.
16. In my considered view, the learned trial court has
miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall
evidence available on record in proper prospective and
only recorded the guilt of the appellants.
17. In view of above discussions and reasons, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellants dated 13.07.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 7 th,
Dhanbad in S.T. No. 384 of 2001 is hereby set aside.
18. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed.
19. Appellants are on bail; hence they are discharged
from the liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also
be discharged.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 12th November, 2024
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
