Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 485 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar Sah v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-21

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.2.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. No. 292 of 1999/T.R. No. 1302 of 2002; whereby O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted for the offence under Section 457/380 IPC leveled against them. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on the basis of written report submitted by the petitioner wherein it is alleged that that on 22.8.1999 he was sleeping in his sasural and while his wife was coming down from the stairs, she saw Lakhan Mahato - O.P. No. 2 and Ramu Mahato O.P. No. 3 who have entered inside the room after opening the lock. Thereafter, wife of informant raised noise (halla) that thieves, namely, Lakhan Mahato - O.P. No. 2 and Ramu Mahato O.P. No. 3 have entered into the room. Thereafter other inmates of the house got up and started chasing the thieves but they were not found at their home. It is further alleged that they have stolen some article like gold ornaments, watch, radios and cash Rs. 1500/-. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 73/99 for the offence u/s 457, 380 IPC was registered against the accused persons and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, charges were framed against the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally they have been acquitted by the trial court. 4. Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that an eye witness has been examined in this case and she has supported the prosecution’s case. But only on the ground that since no independent witness has been examined, trial court had given the benefit of doubts to the O.P. No. 2 and 3 in spite of the fact that the trial court itself observed that the evidence of the interested witnesses are not required to be rejected but the fact remains that it has rejected the entire deposition of other witness only on the ground that independent witness was not there to support the prosecution’s case; as such the matter may be sent back for retrial so that justice should prevail. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and 3 draws attention of this Court towards Exhibit-A, B and B/1 and submits that one witness, namely, Saligram Mahto had filed certain documents before the Labour Superintendent. Ext. B is the written complaint filed by the accused persons before the Labour Superintendent, Ext. B/1 is the written complaint filed by the accused persons before the Labour Officer on 10.4.1999. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 and 3 were employees of PW-7 and that is the reason the opposite parties have been implicated in this case because they have raised dispute before the Labour Superintendent for which they have submitted documents which were Exhibited as Exht.A, B and B/1. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment including the LCR and from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses, it appears that the learned trial court has gone deep into the matter and came to a conclusion that no case is made out and the deposition of informant is not sufficient to prove the guilt of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Further, Exhibit A, B, and B/1 with regard to the complaint made by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 against PW-7 before the Labour Superintendent goes show that there might be a personal vendetta against the O.P. No. 2 and 3. For brevity paragraph 16 and 17 of the impugned order is quoted herein-below: “16. In support of the case of the accused the defence has examined one witness namely Saligram Mahto and has filed certain documents Exht.A is the original certificate under posting dated 10.4.99. Exht.B is the written complaint filed by the accused persons before the labour superintendent dated 10.4.99. Exht.B/1 is the written complaint filed by the accused persons before labour officer dated 10.04.99. “17. DW-1 Saligram Mahto has stated on oath that Suman Pera Bhandar is owned by Pramanand Mandal where he had worked as a worker along with Ramu and Lakhan. He has stated that there was a dispute between the accused and Pramanand Mandal with regard to payment of wages. He has admitted that the accused persons had filed a case before the labour court for payment of adequate wages. He has identified the Exht.B and B/1 which has been written by one Baleshwar Yadav impressed upon by the accused persons. He has admitted that the accused persons had filed a case before the labour court for payment of adequate wages. He has identified the Exht.B and B/1 which has been written by one Baleshwar Yadav impressed upon by the accused persons. In his cross-examination he has stated that at the time and place of occurrence he was not present there and had not seen any occurrence.” After going through the aforesaid paragraph, it appears that there is no error in the impugned order whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned trial court. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment. 8. Consequently, the instant criminal revision stands dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner as well as O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.