Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2107 (JHR)

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned APP and Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the informant are present. As this matter is pending since the year 2008, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 05.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and where under, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.03.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 127 of 1997 (T.R. No. 747 of 1998, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 387 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 03 years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/-has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was running a readymade garment shop in the name and style of Juno Garments at Park Market, Hirapur. It has been alleged that on 18.01.1997, the petitioner along with his associates came at about 4.00 p.m. and demanded Rs. 2,000/-as extortion money. It has been further alleged that when the informant refused to pay, the petitioner abused him and when the informant and the staff Harish Prasad protested, the petitioner gave a blow with an iron rod on the head of Harish Prasad and blood started trickling out. Further allegation has been levelled that the petitioner and his associates after showing pistol went away by taking Rs. 1200/-from the drawer. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 127 of 1997 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed u/s 386 I.P.C. and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 07 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Krishna Kumar Chourasia has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sitting in his shop along with his brother and the staff when the accused persons had come and demanded extortion money of Rs. 2,000/. He has stated that on refusal, the petitioner started abusing and on protest he caught hold of the collar of the informant. He has further deposed that when one staff, namely, Harish Prasad protested, the petitioner assaulted him with a rod on his head. 2,000/. He has stated that on refusal, the petitioner started abusing and on protest he caught hold of the collar of the informant. He has further deposed that when one staff, namely, Harish Prasad protested, the petitioner assaulted him with a rod on his head. He has further stated that the petitioner while brandishing a revolver took away Rs. 1200/-from the drawer and subsequently left the shop. P.W. 2, Dipak Kumar has stated that he was present in Juno Garments along with other staffs and owner of the shop on the date of occurrence when the petitioner entered along with his associates and demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/-as extortion money and on refusal he had caught hold of the collar of the informant. He has further stated that the petitioner started abusing and when Harish Prasad protested he was assaulted with a rod on his head. He has also stated that the petitioner by brandishing revolver had left the shop after taking away Rs. 1200/-. P.W. 3 Harish Prasad, is the witness who had suffered injury on his head on account of the assault committed upon him by the petitioner with a rod. This witness has supported the prosecution case and further stated that an amount of Rs. 1200/-was taken away by the petitioner from the drawer. P.W. 4 Pankaj Kumar is also an eye witness who has supported the prosecution case. P.W. 5, Chanchal Chourasia is the informant who has stated that on the date of occurrence he was in his shop along with his brother and other staffs when the petitioner came with two of his associates and demanded extortion money of Rs. 2,000/-. He has stated that on refusal, the petitioner had caught hold of his collar and has also threatened him. He has deposed that on protest by Harish Prasad, he was assaulted with an iron rod on the head. This witness has further stated that the petitioner had taken away Rs. 1200/-from the drawer. P.W. 6 Dr. A. K. Singh was posted at PMCH on the date of occurrence when he had examined the victim Harish Prasad and had found superficial injury on the left side of scalp. This witness has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext.-2. 1200/-from the drawer. P.W. 6 Dr. A. K. Singh was posted at PMCH on the date of occurrence when he had examined the victim Harish Prasad and had found superficial injury on the left side of scalp. This witness has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext.-2. P.W. 7 Ramesh Paswan is the Investigating Officer who has stated that he had recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant and has recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness had described the place of occurrence and after finding the allegation to be true had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. 5. The defence has taken a plea that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and there has been a considerable delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court. So far as the question of delay is concerned, the same has aptly been considered by the learned courts below and sending the F.I.R. with a delay of about a day to the court would not demolish the prosecution case itself on such score. So far as the witnesses of the prosecution are concerned, all the witnesses barring P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are either the brother of the informant or the staff of Juno Garments, who had all witnessed the occurrence and vividly described the entire incident. The petitioner was identified as the person who had entered into Juno Garments and had demanded Rs. 2,000/-as extortion money and in order to collect the same had abused and threatened the informant and others and after causing assault upon the P.W. 3 had taken away Rs. 1200/-from the drawer of the shop. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 sufficiently corroborates what has been stated by the P.W. 5 and the evidence of P.W. 6 also is supportive of the prosecution case with respect to the injury suffered by P.W. 3 on his head on account of assault with a rod by the petitioner. Therefore merely because the witnesses are either related to the informant or are staffs of the informant cannot dilute the prosecution case as on proper scrutiny of their evidence, the same appears to be blemishless and untainted and suggestion of the defence therefore that the witnesses are partisan witnesses is negated. 6. Therefore merely because the witnesses are either related to the informant or are staffs of the informant cannot dilute the prosecution case as on proper scrutiny of their evidence, the same appears to be blemishless and untainted and suggestion of the defence therefore that the witnesses are partisan witnesses is negated. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences u/s 387 I.P.C., which has been affirmed in appeal also. The same is hereby sustained. 7. As regards the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner had in a dare devil fashion entered into the shop of the informant which is situated in a busy market place and by brandishing revolver had demanded extortion money and in the said process had also caused assault upon P.W. 3. The act of the petitioner therefore does not implore this Court to leniently consider the sentence imposed upon him. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is also sustained. 8. Consequent to the discussions made herein above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is hereby dismissed.