Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1997 (JHR)

Jairam Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. I.A. No. 424/2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner on the prayer for condonation of delay. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the matter where petitioner is seeking leave to appeal. 2. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Compt. Case No. 210/2006 (T.R. No. 193/2010), whereby and whereunder opposite party No. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges under sections 323 and 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the materials on record, discloses that on 21.06.2006 at about 10.00 AM accused Teklal Mahto and Chhoti Prajapati (O.P. No. 2 & 3) came to the house of the complainant and told him to come to their house where accused Seema Kumari was present. She wanted to talk with him and pacify the land dispute. The complainant accompanied them and reached Teklal's house where Seema Kumari was present along with two persons. She told the complainant that she had already purchased the land and asked him to leave the land. On refusal of the complainant, accused No. 1 and 2 became angry and started manhandling him. Subsequently, Seema Kumari asked the complainant to put his signature on the blank paper. On refusal, accused No. 1 and 2 started assaulting him and out of fear, he put his signature on the said paper. On 22.06.2006 the complainant came to know that accused persons fraudulently manufactured an application in the name of Circle Officer on the paper, on which they obtained his signature. When he went to the Police Station to lodge the FIR on 26.06.2006, the complainant saw some political persons on the side of the accused persons. Thereafter, he filed this complaint petition. 4. After conducting an inquiry, on 17.10.2006 summons were issued against the accused persons. Accusation was explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and trial commenced. Complainant examined himself as CW-3, CW-1 Rohit Mahto is his son-in-law and CW-2 Girdhari Prajapati is his son. Learned Trial Court examined the evidences on record in relation to the ingredients of both the offences under sections 323 and 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accusation was explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and trial commenced. Complainant examined himself as CW-3, CW-1 Rohit Mahto is his son-in-law and CW-2 Girdhari Prajapati is his son. Learned Trial Court examined the evidences on record in relation to the ingredients of both the offences under sections 323 and 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After analyzing the evidence of the complainant (CW-3), his son-in-law (CW-1) and his son (CW-2), Learned Trial Court found material inconsistency in their statements as to their presence at the time of the alleged occurrence, as there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the statement of the complainant and other related witnesses. The complainant in his Examination-in-chief had categorically stated that he went to the house of these two accused persons on call where Seema Kumari was present. No one had accompanied him. Learned Trial Court draw inference that no one had accompanied the complainant at the time of occurrence. CW-1, on the other hand, stated in his cross-examination, that he accompanied his father-in-law to the house of the accused persons. Statement of CW-1 therefore falsified the version of the complainant. CW-2 who is the son of the complainant, in his Examination-in-chief, has stated that he reached the residence of accused Teklal Mahto and Chhoti Mahto after sometime. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the P.O., he and his father were present and no one was there except accused persons. These inconsistencies in the statement of each of these complainant witnesses made the whole case of the prosecution doubtful in relation to the allegation of assault and offences under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that there was an admitted civil dispute between the parties which is pending before the competent Civil Court. Learned Trial Court also came to the conclusion upon analysis of the evidence on record in respect of the charges under section 385 of the Indian Penal Code that the complainant witnesses had failed to satisfy the ingredients contemplated under section 383 of the Indian Penal Code which relates to extortion. No evidence was on record as to what happened to that paper whether it was converted into any valuable security or not? No evidence was on record as to what happened to that paper whether it was converted into any valuable security or not? Therefore, allegation of putting the complainant in fear to deliver any person/property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed dishonestly, which could be converted into valuable security, was not made out beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. In the wake of these material evidences which created doubt in the minds of the Learned Trial Court and accused persons were acquitted of both the charges. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the challenge as well, though application itself is barred by delay of 131 days for condonation of which I.A. No. 424/2011 has also been preferred. Having anxiously applied our mind to the relevant materials on record, we do not find any substance on merits for grant of leave. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in preferring the instant petition. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.