Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1502 (JHR)

Fredrick Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-03

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears from the office notes that the complainant opposite party No. 2 had refused to accept the notice. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.7.2000, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in complaint case No. C-184 of 1995 / T.R. No. 797 of 2000, whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, he was directed to enter into a probation bond of Rs. 5000/-with one surety of the like amount to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years. The appeal filed against the said Judgment was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2000, by Judgment dated 7.1.2003. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the instant complaint petition was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, by the complainant Balmiki @ Jhario Devi, alleging therein that on 8.8.1995 while the complainant and her family members were uprooting the paddy seedlings for plantation, from the agricultural land in question, the accused petitioner assaulted them and also outrage her modesty. It appears that the complainant had supported the allegation against the petitioner in her statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses also supported the case of the complainant at the enquiry stage, whereupon, prime facie case was found against the petitioner and process was issued against him, and he was ultimately put to trial. 4. The record shows that in course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined from the side of the complainant including the complainant herself. The defense had also examined three witnesses in this case and some documents were also proved and marked exhibits. It appears from the Judgment passed by the Trial Court below that defense had examined the witnesses and proved the documents to show, that the land in question belonged to the petitioner, who had purchased the same in the name of his wife and the same was also mutated in her favour. It was also proved that for the occurrence of 8.8.1995, the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case upon the complainant. It was also proved that for the occurrence of 8.8.1995, the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case upon the complainant. From the Judgment of the Trial Court below itself, it is apparent that the present complaint case was filed after a delay of about four months of the occurrence of the same date, for which the petitioner had earlier filed the criminal case against the complainant. 5. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted him for the same. However, the petitioner was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and was asked to enter into a probation bond and the appeal filed against the said Judgment was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. 6. Upon going through the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, it is apparent that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint case by the complainant, in as much as, the complaint had filed the complaint petition for the alleged occurrence of 8.8.1995 on 21.12.1995. This apart, the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case upon the complainant for the occurrence of the same date. It is also apparent from the Judgments passed by the Courts below that occurrence had taken place due to the dispute of the land in question between the parties and the occurrence had taken place at the time of uprooting the paddy seedlings for plantation, from the agricultural land in question. The petitioner also claimed possession over the land in question, for which, the evidence was adduced by the defense, both oral and documentary. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that even if the witnesses examined by the complainant had supported the prosecution case, the petitioner had brought sufficient materials on record to create a bona fide doubt over the prosecution case and in the facts of the case, the petitioner was entitled at least to the benefit of doubt. 8. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned Judgment dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in complaint case No. C-184 of 1995 / T.R. No. 797 of 2000, as also, the Judgment dated 7.1.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2000, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. 9. This criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. Revision allowed.