Deonath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8787 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Deonath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 4 September, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2017

                1. Deonath Singh, Son of Khirodhar Singh, Resident of village Ettam,
                2. Ashok Nag, Son of Chatrapal Nag, Resident of village Tamba,
                   Both P.O. & P.S. Rania, District Khunti
                                                           ...     ...     Petitioners
                                        Versus
                The State of Jharkhand          ...      ...      Opposite Party
                                        ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                For the Petitioners        : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
                For the Opp. Party         : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
                                           ---

10/04.09.2024          Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"That the instant criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 20.09.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 233/2012, passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar No.1, Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, whereby and where under the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2012, passed in Rania P.S. Case No. 09/2011, corresponding G.R. Case No.165/2011, subsequently T.R. No.06/2012, passed by Sri Nishant Kumar, Learned Judicial Magistrate-1st class, Khunti, has been set aside the conviction of petitioners U/S 427 I.P.C. and affirmed the conviction of petitioners U/S 143/341/353/504 I.P.C. and awarded R.I. for 4 months for the offence U/S 143 I.P.C. and further awarded S.I. for 1 month for the offence U/S 341 I.P.C., and further awarded R.I. for 1 year for the offence U/S 353 I.P.C. and further awarded R.I. for 6 months for the offence U/S 504 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period already undergone in custody shall be set-off in the amount of punishment."

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at the stage of trial, petitioner no. 1 has remained in custody for a period 15 days and petitioner no. 2 has remained in custody for 06 days and at the stage of revision, both of them surrendered on 02.04.2018. By order dated 10.04.2018 passed by this Court, they were enlarged on bail and they furnished the bail bond on 18.04.2018. The learned counsel submits that although both the learned Courts have returned concurrent finding with regard to conviction of the petitioners under section 143, 341, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, but the basic ingredients for constituting offence under section 143, 353 and 504 was not made out. He has submitted that otherwise also, the judgments suffer from perversity.

4. While pointing out the perversity in the impugned judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant is P.W. 8 who was the then Block Development Officer and is also alleged victim but he has not identified the petitioners and he has not disclosed as to from where he came to know about the name of the petitioners and the petitioners were named in the First Information Report.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that so far as P.W. 1 is concerned, he and wife of petitioner no. 2 were on litigating terms and wife of petitioner no. 2 is Poonam Devi. He has further submitted that there is allegation of assault by lathi and there is also an allegation that the glass of the table was broken on account of such incident which was alleged to have taken place inside the chamber of Block Development Officer but the investigating officer has not seized any broken material from the chamber nor the victim was examined by any doctor and therefore, no injury has been found. The learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned Courts and accordingly, the impugned judgments call for interference.

6. With respect to the ingredients under section 353 of Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel submits that the victim was not performing any official duty and therefore, one of the main ingredients of offence under section 353 of Indian Penal Code was not satisfied.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are three eye-witnesses to the occurrence - P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8. P.W. 1 is the Supply Inspector, P.W. 6 is the Circle Officer and P.W. 8 is the Block Development Officer. The learned

counsel submits that P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, who were with P.W. 8 in his chamber, were actually doing official work of taking the stock of the distribution of BPL card and there is consistent evidence to that effect and therefore, it cannot be said that they were not performing any official duty.

8. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 have duly identified the accused though P.W. 8 had not identified the accused. He further submits that P.W. 1 was cross- examined and during cross-examination, the name of Poonam Devi, has come but P.W-1 has said that he did not know the name of the husband of Poonam Devi. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that there is no cross-examination to show any inimical term between P.W. 1 and petitioner no. 2.

9. The learned counsel has thereafter submitted though the investigating officer of the case during his cross-examination has stated that he did not seize the broken articles, but in his examination- in-chief he has stated that the glass on the table was found broken. So far as the injury is concerned, the learned counsel submits that since the victim has fully supported the prosecution case and merely because no injury as such was found by the investigating officer on the body of the victim, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Findings of this Court

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the allegation which is based on the written report of the Block Development Officer (P.W. 8) of Rania block, there was a special drive going on for issuance of BPL card at various panchayat level under the supervision of Block Officer, Rania. On 26.04.2011, the informant (P.W-8) , the Circle Officer (P.W. 6) and the Block Supply Officer (P.W. 1) were supervising the scheme and suddenly at around 4.00 p.m. a mob of about hundreds of villagers in the leadership of Smt. Emanti Kandulna, Balram Swansi and Krishna Singh arrived at the block office at Rania and entered into the chamber of P.W. 8 and placed their demand. Thereafter, on being assured of

necessary action, the mob dispersed. After some time, an aggressive mob comprising of 50 villagers in the leadership of both the accused entered into the chamber of P.W. 8 and attacked with lathi on the informant. In order to evade from lathi blow, the informant threw himself behind the chair. The lathi blow then hit the table due to which the articles kept on the table were broken. Thereafter, the mob forced them to come out of the chamber and misbehaved with the informant. When he came out, he was abused and threatened with life. In the meantime, the Circle Officer - P.W. 6 called the police and upon arrival of police , the mob dispersed.

11. On the basis of the written information, Rania P.S. Case No. 9 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 was registered for offence punishable under sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 353 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioners for offence punishable under sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 353 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and other accused remained untraceable. The cognizance was taken against these two petitioners under the aforesaid sections.

12. At the stage of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 was the Supply Inspector, P.W. 6 was the Circle Officer, P.W. 8 was the Block Development Officer and P.W. 9 was the investigating officer of the case. There were other witnesses also. The documentary evidences were also exhibited which are as follows:

(i) Exhibit 1 is signature of the P.W. 8 over the computer typed written report.

(ii) Exhibit 1/1 is endorsement of the then officer-in-charge over written report.

(iii) Exhibit 2 is entire formal First Information Report.

13. After the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they were in complete denial. They did not lead any defence evidence, however, they cross-examined all the witnesses.

14. This Court finds that P.W. 1 who is the Block Supply Officer has supported the prosecution case. This witness has categorically

stated in his evidence that the three persons i.e., P.W. 1, 6 and 8 were taking stock of the work regarding distribution of BPL card and he has fully supported the prosecution story. He has identified the accused present in the Court and has categorically stated that the accused persons were leading the mob which attacked the informant and caused damage to the articles put on the table. He was cross-examined at length but during his cross-examination there was nothing to show that he was in inimical terms with the wife of petitioner no. 2. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the wife of petitioner no. 2 is Poonam devi, but during cross-examination, P.W. 1 has categorically stated that he did not know the name of the husband of Poonam Devi. This Court finds that the entire evidence of P.W. 1 remained intact in spite of the fact that he was fully cross- examined.

15. P.W. 2, in his examination-in-chief, has supported the fact that on the date of occurrence the process of distribution of BPL card was going on, but he showed his unawareness about the incident and therefore, he was declared hostile.

16. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he is the Chaukidar. He has stated that the mob had come to the block office after which he fled away, but later on he came to know that somebody had assaulted BDO

- the P.W. 8. This witness was also declared hostile.

17. P.W. 4, in his examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution case to the extent that in Rania block the drive for making BPL card was going. He stated that he being a social worker forwarded the demand of villagers before BDO, Rania block and after getting assurance that the matter shall be forwarded to the higher authority, he along with other villagers left the office. This witness showed his unawareness about the incident and he was also declared hostile.

18. P.W. 5 also supported the prosecution story to the extent that she had a meeting with BDO in the context of issuance of BPL card and thereafter, she left the office. She was also declared hostile with respect to rest of the prosecution story.

19. P.W. 6, who is also an eye-witness and was said to be present at the time of incident, has fully supported the prosecution case and he claimed to identify the accused persons who were on representation. This witness was also duly cross-examined by the defence.

20. P.W. 7 is the member of the team who met the P.W. 8 and thereafter, he left the office. He deposed that later he came to know about the incident.

21. P.W. 8 is the informant of the case. He has fully supported the prosecution case. He has also been cross-examined but he refused to identify the accused and was declared hostile on the point of identification.

22. P.W. 9 is the investigating officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence-in-chief that he inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the evidence of all the witnesses and he saw a broken glass on the table. However, during his cross-examination he has stated that no seizure list was prepared with respect to the broken articles and that he could not see any injury on the body of the victim - P.W. 8.

23. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have considered all the materials on record and have recorded concurrent findings. The learned appellate Court has also enumerated the basic ingredients for constituting offence under all the concerned sections including section 353 of Indian Penal Code and recorded the following findings after appreciating the materials on record :

"In the present case in hand, admittedly prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses in this case out of them P.w.8 is the informant Rahuljee Anandjee, the then BDO of Ranila Block. In his deposition he has categorically stated that a voilent crowd leaded by Deonath Singh and Ashok Nag had entered in his office and had started assaulting him by fists and kists as well as from lathi and danda. This witness has further categorically stated that the said voilent crowd had assaulted him and abuse him too. This witness has admitted that the then C.O Virprakash Prasad was also present in his office. Again from deposition of Virprakash Prasad as P.w.6, it is clear that P.w.6 had fully supported the prosecution case and had categorically stated that under the leadership of Deonath Singh and Ashok Nag 50-60 villagers had forcibly entered in the office of BDO Saheb and

have attacked over BDO Saheb by lathi and danda. Then the BDO Saheb, in order to save himself, had hidden himself behind the chair. It is further stated by P.w.6 that the crowd had dragged BDO Saheb out of his office and had also insulted him. This witness has further stated that after dragging him out from the office, they have started assaulting BDO Saheb. This witness has categorically acclaimed to identify both the accused. Here from the depositions of these two witnesses, it is sufficiently proved by the prosecution that these accused persons have were indulged in commission of offence u/s 353 IPC by using criminal force against him and they were instrumental deter a public servant from discharging his duty. Again it is also established by the aforesaid evidencesd that these accused persons have not only wrongfully restrained the informant but had also intentionally insulted him with intent to provoke breach of the peace and thereby the offence u/s 341 and 504 IPC has also been established agaisnt the accused/appellants. Hence the finding of ld. Lower court below to hold both the appellants/accused persons guilty for the offence u/s 353/341/504 IPC is worth and based upon the right and just appreciation of evidences and thereby the conviction thereby the conviction and sentence as such passed by ld. Lower court below under the aforesaid offences against these very accused/appellants needs no interference.

Again to prove the offence u/s 427 I.P.C the essential ingredients prosecution has to prove are:- firstly the accused had committed mischief and secondly thereby caused loss or damage to the amount of minimum Rs.50 or more.

In order to prove a charge of mischief prosecution has first to prove that the accused has an intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to public or to any person. Here the word "Mischief" is defined u/s 425 I.P.C. The essential ingredients of Mischief u/s 425 I.P.C is :-

(a) The accused must have caused the destruction of some property or some change in it or its situation;

(b) Such change must have destroyed or diminished the value or utility of the property or affected it injuriously

(c) Destruction or change in the property or situation thereof must have been done with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.

Mischief like most crimes comprises a mental and a physical element. The mental element is a intention express or implied to cause wrongful loss or damage. The physical element of an act of destruction or injurious change to property. Mischief involved intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or

damage. It does not unnecessary uncoupled damage of a destructive character. The mens-rea is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of mischief and if the accused honestly believe in good faith that he had the right to do what he did, even if he did not in law have the tried, he cannot be said to have had necessary intention or knowledge that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage. Here in this case, from conjoint reading of entire prosecution evidences, it is clear that the motive of these very accused/appellants was to deter a public servant in his office and thereby to assault him. Even the prosecution witnesses including the informant had stated that the violent crowd, under the instigation of these very accused/appellants had blown lathi to target the informant i.e. BDO and when the informant escaped from his chair then only the blow was fallen over the table and table glass and other articles were destroyed. This shows that the accused/appellants have no motive or intention to commit mischief. Again to prove the offence u/s 427 IPC, prosecution has to prove that due to the said mischief, informant had sustained loss or damage to the amount of Rs 50 or upwards. Here in this case none of the witness including the informant had anywhere stated about the quantum of loss or damage. Thus in light of aforesaid discussion, I find and hold that prosecution has not successfully proved the charge u/s 427 IPC against either of these accused/appellants and thereby the finding of lower court below regarding conviction of these accused/appellants for the offence u/s 427 IPC is hereby set aside.

Again regarding the offence u/s 143 IPC, prosecution has to prove that these accused persons are members of an unlawful assembly.

In this case prosecution case is that nearly 50 persons in a form of aggressive mob had entered in the chamber of BDO of Rania Block and had assaulted him. These fact has been supported by all the prosecution witnesses, supported the prosecution case and thereby involvement of these accused persons/appellants as a member of an unlawful assembly has been established. Thus the finding of ld. Lower court below to hold these accused persons/appellants guilty fo the offence u/s 143 IPC is also proper, legal and as a result of well appreciation of evidences. Hence the conviction and sentence as such passed by ld. Lower court below against the accused persons/appellants for the offence u/s 143 IPC needs no interference.

Thus in light of the aforesaid discussion as well as materials available on record, findings of ld. Lower court below regarding conviction and sentence as such passed u/s 143/341/353/504 IPC is upheld, whereas regarding the findings the Id. Lower court below for conviction & sentence regarding offence u/s 427 IPC is

hereby set aside and in this score this appeal is hereby dismissed. Let office be sent the copy of judgment alongwith LCR to court concerned."

24. The learned appellate court upon consideration of the provisions of section 427 of Indian Penal Code found that the charge was not proved. The learned appellate court has set-aside the conviction under section 427 of I.P.C.

25. This Court finds that there is enough material to show that three persons i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 were sitting in the chamber of P.W. 8 and doing their official work and other ingredients with respect to section 353 of Indian Penal Code were also duly satisfied.

26. This Court is of the view that since the eye-witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 have fully supported the prosecution case and have described the occurrence, non-identification of the accused by P.W. 8 - the informant of the case is not fatal to the prosecution case, inasmuch as, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 have duly identified the accused.

27. So far as not preparing any seizure list with broken articles and further the investigating officer having not found any injury on the body of P.W. 8 is concerned, the same is also not fatal to the prosecution case, inasmuch as, P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 have duly supported the prosecution case. Otherwise also, as per the provisions of section 353 of Indian Penal Code there is no need to have injury on the body and mere attack is sufficient which amounts to use of criminal force considering the facts proved in this case. Not only use of criminal force but mere assault is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 353 of Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate Court has also recorded that the basic ingredients for offence under sections 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code were also duly established.

28. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and having gone through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that both the learned Courts have passed well-reasoned judgments considering the materials on record to the extent the conviction of the petitioners have been sustained by the appellate court. This court is of

the considered view that there is no perversity, illegality or material irregularity with regard to the conviction of the petitioners as sustained by the appellate court. This Court has gone through the records and the evidences which have been placed by the petitioners during the course of hearing in order to find out if there is any perversity in the impugned judgments, but having gone through the same, this Court finds no perversity and the petitioners have failed to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court. This is over and above the settled position in law that there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction in absence of perversity or material irregularity.

29. Considering the nature of offence and the manner it has been given effect , this court is of the view that the sentence is also adequate and appropriate.

30. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.

31. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby cancelled.

32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

33. Let the records received from the learned Court be immediately sent back to the Court concerned.

34. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj