Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1024 (JHR)

Gopal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2020-10-20

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 34/2013 whereby the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in G.R. Case No. 311/2003, T.R. Case No. 229/2013 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and both the petitioners were admonished for their acts and were directed to be released forthwith from the custody. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined in the present case and in absence of his examination, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts. He also submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the petitioners have been wrongly held guilty. He further submitted that the learned courts below have also failed to taken into consideration that several cases were pending between the parties and they were already in litigating terms. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Informant of the case was a litigant and he was involved in so many cases as accused and that he is also a political person and he got the present case instituted against the petitioners with political motive. He also submitted that there was delay in lodging the case against the accused persons and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments call for interference in revisional jurisdiction in order to serve the ends of justice. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 7. He also submitted that there was delay in lodging the case against the accused persons and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments call for interference in revisional jurisdiction in order to serve the ends of justice. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below after due consideration of the evidences available on record and there is no perversity or illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and therefore, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence under revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that although the petitioners have been convicted for the alleged offences, no punishment as such has been given to them and the learned trial court has given them the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and has admonished them for their acts and has directed to release them forthwith from custody as back as on 20.03.2013, when the trial court pronounced the judgment and sentence. He further submitted that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written information of informant namely, Ganga Dhar Jha (PW-6) lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Godda (T) Police Station on 24.03.2003 alleging inter alia that on 24.03.2003 at 7:00 A.M. he was going to polling booth for polling and when he reached near Dhibiya Jore, Phani Dhar Yadav, Jitendra Yadav and Gopal Yadav alongwith 20-25 other persons armed with weapons attacked him in order to kill him by means of stone and knife caused grievous injuries to him. He further stated that the accused persons also gave threatening to him to finish his entire family members within twenty-four hours. Thereafter, he was medically treated at Sadar Hospital, Godda. The Informant stated the reason for the occurrence that anti-social elements were desirous to get his vote in favour of a particular party and they were depriving the voters of other party from casting their votes. 9. Thereafter, he was medically treated at Sadar Hospital, Godda. The Informant stated the reason for the occurrence that anti-social elements were desirous to get his vote in favour of a particular party and they were depriving the voters of other party from casting their votes. 9. On the basis of said information, a case was registered being Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 52/2003 dated 25.03.2003 for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 337, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code against three named accused persons including the petitioners and 20-25 unknown persons. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted only against the petitioners and thereafter, cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 341, 337 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them on 29.05.2003. On 29.07.2003, the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 147, 337, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code was explained to the petitioners in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. This Court finds that the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is Sukhdeo Rai, PW-2 is Sugriv Mahali, PW-3 is Arjun Mohali, PW-4 is Surendra Raut, PW-5 is Sita Ram Gandharv who is the nephew of the Informant, PW-6 is Gangadhar Jha who is the Informant of the case and has exhibited his signature on the written report as Exhibit-1, PW-7 is Upasi Raut who has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-8 is Dr. Safi Ahmad who treated the injured informant of the case and proved his injury reports as Exhibits-2 and 3. 11. On 10.06.2011, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the occurrence and claimed innocence. Thereafter, the petitioners examined one defence witness namely, Anant Prasad Singh as DW-1 in their defence and exhibited certain documents i.e. Certified Copy of the F.I.R. of G.R. Case No. 398/2007, Certified copy of F.I.R. of G.R. Case No. 548/2007, certified Copy of entire order sheets of Tasdik Tanaja No. 2 of Mauza AjaraKanauli and one affidavit dated 29.06.2011 sworn by Surendra Raut which were marked as Exhibits-A, B, C and D respectively. 12. 12. This Court finds that the learned court below considered the arguments of the both the parties, discussed the evidences of the prosecution as well as the defence, the provision and summarised its findings in Para-22 of its judgment which reads as under: “22. It is thus quite crystal clear from the discussion and findings as mentioned hereinabove that the informant of this case as P.W.6 is the main injured person of this case and PW-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also slightly injured persons at the hands of the accused persons. It further appears that all the aforementioned witnesses have reiterated in their respective evidences that when they were going to polling booth on 24.3.2003 at about 7.00 A.M. for casting their votes and had reached near Dhibiajore, the accused persons beat up them by way of pelting stones over them, wrongfully restrained them in their way. It further appears that the aforementioned prosecution witnesses did not go to cast their votes when stones were pelted over them by the accused persons. It amounts to wrongful restraints of those persons by the accused persons namely, Gopal Yadav and Jitendra Yadav. It further appears that these persons endangered personal safety of the informant of this case and others and caused hurt to them by way of pelting stones over them. At the same time, it also appears that all the accused persons had together and suddenly appeared in the way of the informant of this case and others and had committed the said occurrence. The same depicts common intention of the accused persons who committed the alleged occurrence in further of common intention to wrongfully restrain and to endanger the personal safety for the informant of this case and others by way of causing hurt to them through pelting of stones over them. Accordingly, the ingredients for the offences u/ss. 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the I.P.C. are also made out and proved against the accused persons on the basis of the prosecution evidences on the record as discussed hereinabove.” 13. Accordingly, the ingredients for the offences u/ss. 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the I.P.C. are also made out and proved against the accused persons on the basis of the prosecution evidences on the record as discussed hereinabove.” 13. This Court further finds that the learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was of the opinion that the offences established against the petitioners were of petty nature and there was nothing on record to show any previous conviction of the petitioners and therefore, the learned trial court gave the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and they were directed to be released forthwith from the custody. 14. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also discussed the various evidences on record and dealt with the entire argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners and scrutinised its findings in Paragraph-11 and 12. The learned appellate court found that the Informant (PW-6) deposed that he received injury on his right cheek from the stone pelted by Gopal Yadav (Petitioner No. 1) and he also received injury below his right eye from the knife of Gopal Yadav. PW-8 (doctor) has found three injuries of swelling and abrasion caused by hard and blunt substances and the doctor has not found any injury caused by sharp weapon, but it is proved that the informant received injuries and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that the accused persons have assaulted the informant. The learned appellate court further recorded that the defence has failed to bring any evidence which may discredit the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, there is no basis for disbelieving the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses which have been corroborated by the doctor and injury reports. The learned appellate court further recorded in Paragraph-12 that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have stated that they had also received injuries, but no injury report of the other persons are available on the records of the case. The learned appellate court found that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is a well-reasoned judgment and upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The learned appellate court found that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is a well-reasoned judgment and upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. This Court finds that the learned appellate court, upon perusal of the evidences on record has rightly recorded that there was no material to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also recorded that as per the evidence of the Doctor, injuries of the informant were simple in nature. 16. This Court finds that PW-6 is the injured Informant and is the most important witness of the case. The learned trial court considered the evidence of the injured witness (informant) along with the evidence of the Doctor (PW-8) who had examined him and recorded the finding in Para 21, inter-alia, that the injuries found by the doctor upon the body of the informant corresponds to the averments made by the informant in written information and with the evidence of the informant who had deposed as PW-6. The learned trial court also recorded a finding that PW-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also slightly injured persons at the hand of the accused persons and that they were wrongfully restrained by the accused persons who endangered personal safety of the informant and others. The learned trial court carefully considered the ingredients of the alleged offence and convicted the petitioners under section 341/34, 323/34 and 337/34 of Indian Penal Code by well-reasoned judgment. 17. The learned appellate court also returned concurrent findings after appreciating the evidence on record and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The learned appellate court also recorded that there were no material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. 18. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have recorded findings that on 24.03.2003 at 7:00 A.M. when the Informant was going to polling booth for casting his vote, the petitioners suddenly came out and pelted stones upon the Informant (PW-6) and other prosecution witnesses causing injuries on the person of the informant and prevented them from casting their votes and also endangered the life and personal safety of the informant of this case. 19. 19. This Court finds that the evidence of the Informant is credible and trustworthy which have been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and the injury report of the Informant and also finds that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have supported the date, time, place and the manner of the occurrence. This Court is of the view that the judgments passed by the learned courts below cannot be said to be perverse merely on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer of the case particularly when the prosecution witnesses, including the injured witness , have supported the prosecution case, they have been fully cross examined and no material contradictions have been found and after considering the evidences on record, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioners and the learned appellate court has upheld their conviction. There is nothing on record to show any prejudice having been caused to the petitioners on account of non-examination of the Investigating officer of the case. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and observations and the consistent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and considering the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 23. Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the court concerned. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. Revision dismissed.