Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 51 (JHR)

Manoj Manjhi v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-07

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved of judgment dated 07.06.2017 by which Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 preferred by them against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in G.R. Case No. 1671 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 1117 of 2014 has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners were put on trial in Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 258 of 2008 which was registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 448, 379 and 504 I.P.C. During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses; P.W 5 is the informant and P.W 6 is the investigating officer. The dispute between the parties pertains to harvest of the paddy crops in the field of the informant. On the basis of the evidences led during the trial, the trial Judge has found the accused persons guilty and accordingly, convicted them for the offences under Section 448, 379 and 504 I.P.C. They have, however, been extended the benefits under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and they were directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/- each for a period not exceeding three years. Their appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 has been dismissed. 3. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case must fail. 4. The trial Judge has noticed that there are two eye-witnesses - P.W 3 and P.W 4. In their evidence they have specifically deposed that on 03.11.2008 all the accused persons were harvesting paddy crops in the field of the informant and when they were objected the accused persons who were armed with lathi threated them. The field in which the paddy crop was grown belonged to the informant who has been examined as P.W. 5. The learned trial court on the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence has observed that on such minor inconsistencies the prosecution evidence cannot be disbelieved. The Appellate Court has also recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail. On the plea taken by the accused persons that due to enmity they have been implicated in this case, the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded on such a ground. The Appellate Court has also recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail. On the plea taken by the accused persons that due to enmity they have been implicated in this case, the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded on such a ground. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence, the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 cannot be interfered with. Otherwise also, in view of the evidence of P.W 3 and P.W 4 who are the eye-witnesses and who have specifically deposed that the accused persons were found harvesting the paddy crops in the field of informant, the place of occurrence must be held proved. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no ground to interfere with the judgment dated 07.06.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014 and accordingly, Criminal Revision No.1154 of 2017 is dismissed.