Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 14 (JHR)

Kameshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-04

N.N.TIWARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2010
Order This is the informant's revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.4.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1896 of 2001. 2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner, complainant in the court below is owner of the ambassador car bearing registration no. HYE-7119. He had purchased the said car on 4.1.0.1996 from Balkishun Munda. On 1.5.1998 while he was coming by the said car from the garage, the opposite party no. 2 alongwith opposite party nos. 3 & 4 stopped him and looted away his car. F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner about the said incident. The police had registered the case bearing G.R. No.1 048 of 1998. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was issued under Section 379 IPC. The opposite parties, in course of trial of the said case, produced a purported paper of agreement for sale of the said car in their favour. Learned trial court relying on the said agreement acquitted the opposite parties in the said case. When the petitioner obtained certified copy of the said judgment and perused the same, he came to know that the opposite parties had taken a false plea of agreement and had produced forged paper of agreement. Accordingly he filed a complaint case against the opposite parties as they had forged the paper of agreement and used the same for obtaining their acquittal. The complaint case was referred to the police for investigation and on that basis case was registered in G.R. Case No. 1869 of 2001. It was registered under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 1208 of the I.P.C. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 1208 of the I.P.C. 4. Cognizance was taken and charges were framed by the court below under the said penal sections. The prosecution proved the charges by adducing oral and documentary evidences. Documents produced by the petitioner were marked as Exhibits. The defence had also adduced evidences. The learned trial court, however, without properly considering the evidences on record, arbitrarily observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charge as also the allegation that the paper of agreement (Ext. 1) is forged document and on that basis has erroneously acquitted the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4. It has been submitted that the judgment of acquittal is based on hypothesis. 1) is forged document and on that basis has erroneously acquitted the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4. It has been submitted that the judgment of acquittal is based on hypothesis. There is no due appraisal and appreciation of evidence on record and the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that the impugned judgment is based on thorough and sound appreciation of evidence. The learned trial court on thorough discussion of evidence and material on record has come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. He further submitted that in earlier case (G. R. No. 1048/1998), the petitioner had made false allegation against the opposite parties alleging that his car was looted away by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. After full-fledged trial, the allegation was found false and they were acquitted. The petitioner, in order to harass the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, deliberately and maliciously filed another complaint against the said opposite parties on frivolous allegation that they obtained acquittal in said G.R. No. 1048 of 1998 by producing forged paper of agreement. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the said agreement (Ext.-1) is the forged document. Learned court below after thorough consideration of the facts, evidences and material available on record, has acquitted the said opposite parties by the impugned judgment. There is no infirmity in •the judgment of learned trial court warranting interference with the same by this court in his revisional jurisdiction. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. and considered the facts and material on record. We also perused the impugned judgment and found that the learned trial court has thoroughly dealt with relevant facts and evidences on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. The impugned judgment is well discussed and every aspect has been thoroughly considered. We find no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned judgment so as to interfere with the same in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. This revision is accordingly, dismissed.