Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 283 (JHR)

Jamruddin Alias Jafar v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2007 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (P & A) Act, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No.982 of 2002, T.R. No.29 of 2007, arising out of Mandu (West Bokaro) P.S. Case No.153/2002), whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been projected on the basis of fardbeyan by the informant-Manju Kujur is that on 21.04.2002 before the officer in-charge, Mandu on the allegation that she along with her sister while returning from Church at about 10.30 a.m, when they reached near Drymerhat railing, all of a sudden the appellant caught hold her hand and arm and said that she could not escape by him. She raised alarm and tried to get herself released from his grips but the appellant gave punches on her. Many people of the locality gathered there and caught hold of the appellant. Subsequently, the elder brother of the appellant-Sartaj Khan came there and assured that he himself would produce him on the police station and accordingly, he started moving to police station along with the appellant but in course of the same, when he reached 12 number Chowki, the appellant played a trick and successfully fled away. It is further alleged that earlier appellant had done same wrong with her in the year 1996 and a case being Mandu (West Bokaro) P.S. Case No.261 of 1996 dated 16.08.1996 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the S.C/S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , which is pending before the court of law. It has further been alleged that the appellant scolded her by caste and the informant is very much perturbed because of aggressive behavior of the appellant. 3. It has further been alleged that the appellant scolded her by caste and the informant is very much perturbed because of aggressive behavior of the appellant. 3. On the basis of said fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. was drawn and the case was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. In the meanwhile, I.O. completed the investigation and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence against the appellant was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. When the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. During which the prosecution examined altogether 5 witnesses. Of them, P.W-1 is the father of the victim. P.W-2 is the victim herself. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim. P.W-4 is the sister of the victim and P.W-5 is the brother of the victim-informant. On behalf of the defence two witnesses have been examined. 5. On closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant were put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C , he denied the same. 6. Thereupon, the learned trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses did find the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code thereby recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the alleged occurrence took place in a public area and even at the place of occurrence many people assembled there but it is surprising that none of the independent witness have come forward for prosecution of the case rather only interested witnesses have deposed which casts serious doubt to the authenticity and truthfulness of the testimonies of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the I/O having not been examined has caused serious prejudice since the place of occurrence has not been proved. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is not made out. Moreover the appellant was acquitted in G.R. Case No.1424 of 1996 under Section 3 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the year 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is not made out. Moreover the appellant was acquitted in G.R. Case No.1424 of 1996 under Section 3 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the year 2002. Learned counsel further submits that as per the deposition of P.W-1 namely Kalyan Kujur or his family members, his wife -Martha Kujur (P.W-3), daughter, P.W-2 (Informant), son-P.W-5 (Manbahal Kujur) and another daughter-Bahalen Kujur (P.W-4) were very much present at the place of occurrence, but the statement of Manbahal Kujur (P.W-5) shows that this prosecution witness (P.W-5) reached at the place of occurrence only after hearing the cry of his elder sister and after two to three minutes of his arrival his mother and father (P.W-3 and P.W-1) reached the place of occurrence and as per the versions of the victim P.W-2, she along with younger sister were at the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that the victim girl has repeatedly tried to implicate the appellant in criminal case since they are on inimical terms as has been deposed by P.W-4. 8. As against the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the version of the victim-P.W-2 has found corroboration in the deposition of P.W-4, therefore, any statement made by P.W-1 and P.W-3, the father and mother of the victim will not affect the veracity of the testimonies of the informant-victim as has been made in the fardbeyan as well as deposition in the Court. Further, it has been submitted that all the witnesses are natural witnesses as they were present at the time of occurrence, therefore, the learned trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and hence the same does not warrant any interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that the victim on her fardbeyan has categorically stated that on 21.04.2002 she along with her sister P.W-4 while returning from church at about 10.30 a.m near Drymerhat railing, suddenly the appellant with an evil intention caught her hand and arm and said that she could not escape from him. She raised alarm and tried to extricate herself from the clutches of the appellant, whereupon the appellant gave punches, many people gathered there and they caught hold him. P.W-2-the victim in her deposition has corroborated the versions and nothing has been brought on record that the statement of the victim has been demolished. But from the deposition of P.W-1-the father of the victim, P.W-3-the mother of the victim and P.W-5-the brother of the victim, it appears that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. So far as the deposition of the D.W-1 and 2 are concerned, they have stated categorically that no such occurrence took place on 21.04.2002 at 10.30 a.m. 10. In the instant case, the doctor having not been examined the injury on the person of the victim has not been proved nor any act on the part of the appellant with regard to outraging modesty has been proved. Apart from that, inimical relationship between the appellant and the victim has come to the surface of deposition of P.W-4 and it has also surfaced that in the earlier criminal case the appellant has been acquitted from the same offence. Law is well settled that though the evidences of interested witnesses cannot be discarded just because their relations with victims. But in the instant case, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, nor the injury sustained by the victim has been proved in the absence of any medical examination of the doctor and the place of occurrence having not been proved on non-examination of the I/O, therefore, in the absence of non-examination of doctor as well as I/O, prevaricating and contradictory statement on the part of the prosecution witnesses, guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. Regard being had to the entire facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and accordingly the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2007 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (P & A) Act, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No.982 of 2002, T.R. No.29 of 2007, arising out of Mandu (West Bokaro) P.S. Case No.153/2002) is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges and he be set at liberty if not required in another case. 12. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands allowed.