Jharkhand High Court
Md. Suhaib Son Of Md. Yahia Resident Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
18.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (Fast Track
Court), Chatra in S.T. No.32 of 1990]
------
1. Md. Suhaib Son of Md. Yahia Resident of Main Road P.O. and
P.S. Chatra District-Chatra (Jharkhand)
2. Md. Yahiya, son of Late Enayat Mian Resident of Main Road,
P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District-Chatra, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
JUDGEMENT
------
Dated: 24/10/2024
By Court: The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2006 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge-III (Fast Track Court), Chatra in
S.T. No.32 of 1990 whereby and whereunder, the appellants
have been held guilty and convicted for the offences under
Sections 147, 353 and 225 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to
undergo R.I. of 1 ½ years each for the aforesaid offences along
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with the default stipulation. All
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
28.04.1988 at about 6:30 A.M., one truck bearing Reg. No.BRB-
4698 reached at Pitiz Check Post, which was stopped and
checked by the informant Ram Autar Singh (P.W. 11) in the
capacity of Vanpal and it was found that the truck was loaded
with Kattha covered with Jack fruits. The truck was brought to
Dak-Banglow compound along with driver and khalasi of the
said truck. It is further alleged that at about 7:30 AM, the then
DFO, South Range and ACF, South Range reached and started
enquiry into the matter. Meanwhile, about 20 persons
boarding on a tracker bearing Reg. No.BPM-8452 and three
motorcycles arrived there and forming an unlawful assembly
entered into the Dak-Banglow compound with common object
to liberate the accused persons and the said truck. The
informant identified four accused persons namely Basir, Salim,
Jagnu, Suhib, Muslim and Yahiya Khan, who were pelting
stones over the forest officials and asking to deliver the truck
along with materials. They were also opening firearm from the
said tracker. It is further alleged that some documents were
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
seized by the forest officials and the accused persons also
attempted to take away the detained khalasi(cleaner) and
driver of the said truck.
On the basis of above information, FIR was registered
for the offences under sections 147, 148, 225, 307 and 337 of
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act and Sections 33 of
Indian Forest Act. After completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under sections
147, 148, 353, 337, 307 and 225 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27
of Arms Act and Section 33 of Forest Act. After taking
cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions
and S.T. No.32 of 1990 was registered. The accused persons
denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of
the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant was passed, which has been assailed
in this appeal.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, learned
Amicus Curiae appointed for the appellants has submitted that
the appellants have been falsely dragged in this case with
allegation that they have helped the actual culprits in fleeing
away from the custody of the forest officials. Neither any truck
nor the tracker as alleged in the FIR have been seized in this
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
case rather there is a production-cum-seizure (Ext. P/1) which
shows production-cum-seizure of owner book of the truck
bearing Reg. No. BRB-4698 in the name of accused Md. Yahiya
Khan along with the key of the truck and one passport size
photo. It is further submitted that learned trial court has found
that Kattha was not stolen and the same could not be proved
by the prosecution which have been seized in this case to be
any stolen property. All the witnesses are forest officials, who
have simply reiterated the version of the FIR and nothing else
to corroborate the prosecution. The seized materials were also
not brought on record during the trial of the case. It is further
submitted that appellate No.2 Md. Yahiya was the owner of
the truck allegedly involved in this case and nothing was
seized from the said truck. At that time itself, the appellant
was above 62 years old and the allegation of assaulting to the
police personnels and/or attempting to liberate any person has
not been substantiated against the appellants. Appellant No.1
is the son of the appellant No.2 Md. Yahiya. Both are
implicated in this case simply because they happened to be
owner of the vehicle.
It is also surprising that the prosecution has failed to
prove even the name of the detained persons, who are said to
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
be khalasi(cleaner) and driver of the vehicle and were detained
by the forest officials. It is further submitted that not a single
question incriminating circumstance constituting the offence
under sections 353, 225 and 147 of Indian Penal Code has been
asked from the appellants in their statement under sections 313
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is
absolutely unwarranted under law and fit to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted
that there is no illegal or infirmity in the impugned judgment
and order, which is based upon sound reasons and material
evidences available on record. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
5. I have given anxious consideration to overall facts and
circumstances of the case in the light of the contentions raised
on behalf of both the sides and also perused the trial court
record.
It appears that all together 11 witnesses were examined
by the prosecution in this case to substantiate the charges
leveled against the appellants.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
P.W.3-Lallan Singh, Vanpal(Forest Guard) has been
declared hostile by the prosecution, he has simply stated that
on the date of occurrence, Truck bearing Reg. No.BRB-4698
was detained with forest produce Kattha covered with jack
fruits but several persons approached the office and the driver
and khalasi were managed to flee away with the said truck. He
has not identified any of the persons.
6. P.W.4-Md. Hasim, P.W.5 Balgovind Dangi, P.W. 6 Barun
Chatterjee, P.W.7 Tulsi Prajapati, P.W.8 Vijay Sao and P.W.9
Additya Poddar have been declared hostile by the prosecution
and stated nothing about the occurrence rather they expressed
their no knowledge about the said occurrence.
P.W.10 Baldev Raj was the then DFO, who has also
reiterated the facts contained in the FIR about the detention of
a truck with kattha and arrival of several persons on a tracker
so that the truck driver was able to flee away with the truck
loaded with materials.
This witness has taken away the registration book,
driving license and key of the truck, which were produced
before the police. Further, this witness has not claimed to
identify any particular culprits, who attacked on any of the
officers.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
P.W.11 Ram Autar Singh is a forest guard, who was
also posted on the date of occurrence. This witness has also
specifically reiterated the contents of written report, which was
lodged by him but failed to identify any of the culprits of this
case.
P.W.1 Nand Kishore Das, is also a Vanpal and was
posted on the date of occurrence. He has stated about the
incident and deposed that a truck bearing Reg. No.BRB-4698
was stopped at Pitiz Check Post for checking and found the
truck loaded with Kattha covered with jack fruits. The driver
and khalasi were apprehended but one accused succeeded to
flee away from the place of occurrence. Both the driver and
khalasi were brought to Dak-banglow and the information was
sent to D.F.O., South Range about the said incident and the
talk was going on to bring the said truck from the place of
occurrence, meanwhile, some persons boarding on a tracker
No.BHM-8452 and others on three motorcycles reached at
Dak-banglow and started hue and cry to liberate the driver
and khalasi along with the said truck loaded with materials.
This witness along with other police personnels tried to
disperse the crowd, then firings were opened from the
appellants' side and this witness and others hide themselves to
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
save their life and they took away the driver and khalasi. Out
of several accused persons, this witness identified only Md.
Yahiya, who happens to be the owner of the truck. But this
witness in his cross-examination, has specifically admitted that
prior to this incident, he was not acquainted with Md. Yahiya.
P.W.2 Md. Kamaluddin is a driver of the forest
officials. He has also stated about the occurrence as depicted in
the FIR. He has also not stated about any act of violence
against the forest officials by any person rather simply stated
presence of Md. Yahiya, Salim and Suhaib. He has failed to
identify other accused persons.
7. The aforesaid testimony of the witnesses clearly go to show
that even the forest officials have not supported the
prosecution story and no specific overt act has been attributed
against the appellants constituting the offences for which they
have been held guilty and sentenced. It appears that learned
trial court has considered only the examination-in-chief of the
official-witnesses as a gospel truth and held the appellants
guilty. In my considered view, there is no cogent and reliable
evidence on record to sustain the conviction and sentence of
the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are acquitted from the
charges leveled against them and this appeal is allowed.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
8. Appellants are on bail and discharged from liability of bail
bond. Sureties shall also be discharged.
9. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by
Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, learned Amicus and Mr. P.D. Agrawal,
learned S.P.P. appearing for the State.
10. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services
Committee shall reimburse the Bill/Fees to the learned Amicus
as per Notification dated 23.11.2017.
11. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
12. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be
sent back for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 24/10/2024
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.774 of 2006
