Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1048 (JHR)

Kashi Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-22

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-1, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.194/1994; whereby the learned court has acquitted the O.P.Nos.2-5 from the charges under Sections 307, 341, 337 & 323 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that there was a land dispute between the parties and while the informant along with his relative Jageshwar Prasad Singh were going to village by motorcycle, the accused persons stopped and surrounded them. Thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted them with lathi and stone which resulted in their injuries. When they raised alarm, people of vicinity came there and saved them. On the basis of the written report, the instant case was registered and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused persons for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they were acquitted. 4. Mr. Subham Mishra, learned Amicus appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has passed its entire order on the ground that there was no motive. As a matter of fact, in para-14 of its judgment there is specific finding by the trial court that no material could be brought by the prosecution to show as to why the accused committed such offence; however, the court has given its finding that there was enmity between the parties due to Batai land; as such it cannot be said that there was no motive. Learned Amicus further contended that when the petitioner was himself the victim and the witness; the acquittal of the opposite parties on the ground that there was no independent witness is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further draws attention of this Court towards the deposition of P.W.5, who is the doctor, who categorically found that there was injury; as such acquitting these opposite parties/accused persons at least for the offence under 323 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. As a matter of fact, the doctor has also opined that the injury has been caused due to hard and blunt substance. As a matter of fact, the doctor has also opined that the injury has been caused due to hard and blunt substance. He lastly submits that if the I.O. has not been examined that should not be the ground for acquittal, if the charges are proved and in the instant case P.W.1, 2 & 4 have fully supported the prosecution’s case. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.2-5 submits that during pendency of this case O.P.No.5 has died and he would be defending this case on behalf of O.P.Nos.2-4. He further submits that this Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot look into the evidence and if there can be two opinions; under revisional jurisdiction the Court cannot interfere with the order. He further contended that even admitting that there is some sort of perversity in the order of trial court, nevertheless, after a lapse of so many years it would not be justified in sending the matter back for retrial as the opposite parties are otherwise also indefinitely harassed due to ongoing litigation and now, they are living a peaceful life and they are having good relation with the petitioner also being resident of the same village. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that one of the grounds for which the opposite parties were acquitted was that there was no independent witness. On the point of motive; the learned trial court has categorically stated that there was no any motive and no material has been brought on record to show that as to why the accused committed such offence. However, after going through paragraph 13 of the judgment passed by the trial court it clearly transpires that there was a land dispute and enmity between the parties due to Batai land. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no motive at all. It further transpires from the record that the doctor has opined that there was an injury by hard and blunt substance; thus, acquittal of the petitioners at least from the offence under 323 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, merely on the ground that the I.O has not been examined, acquittal of the opposite parties does not appear to be correct. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is perverse in nature. 7. Further, merely on the ground that the I.O has not been examined, acquittal of the opposite parties does not appear to be correct. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is perverse in nature. 7. Nonetheless, the incident is of the year 1993 and now it is year 2022; as such almost 29 years has lapsed and even the acquitted persons / opposite parties must be under the rigors of ongoing litigation. In the matter of Machander v. State of Hyderabad [ AIR 1955 SC 792 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that while it is incumbent on the Court to see that no guilty person escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed. The scales, the Hon’ble Court observed, must be held even between the prosecution and the accused. In the facts of that case, the Court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circumstances of that case. Further, in the case of S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naicker [ AIR 1958 SC 1032 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to send back proceedings on the ground that already a period of five years has elapsed and it would not be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to continue the proceedings after such a lapse of time. 8. This Court respectfully following the ratio given in the aforesaid cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court that after lapse of so many years it would not be justified to send back the matter for retrial; this Court refrains from interfering with the impugned judgment. 9. As a result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on contest. 10. The Court has appreciated the assistance of learned Amicus. Further, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills as per the guidelines. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.