Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2015 (JHR)

Lalji Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : By Court.-Since both these applications arise out of judgment dated 22.5.2006, same are being disposed of by their common order. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.5.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Dhanbad in Cr.Appeal No. 42 of 1998, by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.4.1998, passed by the learned Special Magistrate/S.D.M., Dhanbad in Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case No. 343 of 1998, by which the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 3/10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that petitioners were found in possession of chits containing code number and roll numbers and making attempts for enhancing the marks of the students taking such code and roll numbers: Based on the aforesaid allegations, for the offence, which had occurred on 23.4.1998, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 343 of 1998 had been instituted under Section 3/10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981. Charge-sheet was submitted and pursuant to which cognizance was taken and thereafter on the same day itself learned trial court had convicted the petitioners and passed an order of sentence, which was affirmed by the learned appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the date of incident itself, the petitioners were apprehended and order of conviction was passed by the learned trial court, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that none of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and only on the basis of the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have been convicted and sentenced accordingly. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. This case appears to be peculiar in the sense that on 23.4.1998 petitioners were allegedly caught with code numbers and roll numbers. it was alleged that they were facilitating the students in making pairvi for enhancing the marks of the code numbers and roll numbers. On the same day, when the alleged incident had taken place, entire process for submission of charge-sheet and conviction of the petitioners was completed. it was alleged that they were facilitating the students in making pairvi for enhancing the marks of the code numbers and roll numbers. On the same day, when the alleged incident had taken place, entire process for submission of charge-sheet and conviction of the petitioners was completed. Not a single witness was examined and merely on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. petitioners were convicted and were sentenced accordingly. However, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does also indicate that there was denial with respect to recovery of chits from the possession of the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that there was acceptance of the guilt on the part of the petitioners in committing the offence as alleged. It is indeed surprising as to what prompted the prosecution to have conducted investigation as well as the trial on the same day. The same itself creates a lacuna in the prosecution case as none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined including the informant to substantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioners. The way the trial has been conducted is beyond comprehension. The learned appellate court also without consideration of the fact that there was absolutely no material so as to convict the petitioners had' affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove therefore the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the petitioners, benefits of doubt has to be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly these applications are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.