Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.748 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Ranjeet Choudhary, son of Mahanand Choudhary, 2. Jeetendra Choudhary, son of Mahanand Choudhary & 3. Santoo Choudhary, son of Mahanand Choudhary, all resident of village- Sonbarsa, P.S. Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/S. Indrajeet Jha, & Ranjan Kr. Jha, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 23-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional P.P. 2. Petitioners, namely, Ranjeet Choudhary, Jeetendra Choudhary and Santoo Choudhary, who are full brothers, have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 171 of the IPC and sentenced each of them for a period of three months as well as suffered fine of Rs.200/- in default thereof to undergo additional imprisonment of 15 days which has been concurred vide judgment dated 04.05.2013 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Naugachia in Cr.Appeal No.45 of 2012 have
Legal Reasoning
challenged the successive finding. 3. P.W.1 Nawal Kishore Singh filed written report disclosing therein that as per direction, a raiding party was Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013 2 constituted and the house of petitioners was raided on 27.04.2006 at about 6 P.M. It has been submitted that from the house lying south to the road a Sumo Jeep along with Pulsar motorcycle was seized while from the house lying north to the road the uniforms so prescribed for SAF constable were seized along with VIP vapor light from a steel box. During course of conduction of raid, none of the petitioners were present. The seizure list was prepared in presence of Jitendra Choudhary as well as Umesh Lal Rajak. 4. Bihpur P.S.Case No.90 of 2006 was registered and after completing the investigation, chargesheet was submitted for an offence punishable under Sections 414, 171 and 34 of the IPC whereunder cognizance was also taken after submission of chargesheet. After conduction of trial, as is evident, the learned Lower Court had acquitted the petitioners for an offence punishable under Sections 411/34 of the IPC because of the fact that petitioners were able to place the relevant document with regard to ownership of Sumo Jeep as well as Pulsar motorcycle. However, conviction was recorded under Sections 171/34 of the IPC which was accorded during course of appellate jurisdiction. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that how the police act in malicious manner against the interest of a citizen, instant case happens to be a glaring example. From the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013 3 evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, the I.O. P.W.6, it is evident that prosecution had alleged recovery of ganja, fire arm from the same house(north to the road)for which Bihpur P.S.Case No.89 of 2000 was registered wherein petitioners were exonerated during course of investigation itself then how for the recovery of present items from the said house, they have been prosecuted. In other words, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that once the house has been identified under exclusive possession of his uncle Shambhu Choudhary then, in that circumstance, prosecuting the petitioners for recovery of the uniform as well as beacon light should not have taken place. It has been further submitted that prosecution on its own had identified two houses occupied by two distinct persons that means to say the house standing south to the road was shown to be that of petitioners while the house having north to the road was identified as belonging to Shambhu Choudhary and on account thereof, the instant prosecution happens to be nothing but highhandedness of the police just to implicate all the members of the family whether they happens to be concerned or not. 6. It has further been submitted that there happens to be no question of joint possession in the background of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the finding recorded by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013 4 successive Courts on that very score is nothing but a tussock. 7. The learned Additional P.P. while supporting the judgment impugned submitted that there happens to be concurrent finding of fact which should not be disturbed with during revisional jurisdiction in ordinary course of nature unless and until there happens to be glaring mistake as well as miscarriage of justice at the end of the learned successive Courts. 8. Altogether six P.Ws. have been examined. P.W.6, the I.O. himself has stated under para-3 of his cross-examination that Manoj Kumar and Jitendra Kumar happens to be the seizure list witnesses relating to both the cases that means to say Bihpur P.S.Case No.89 of 2006 as well as Bihpur P.S.Case No.90 of 2006(present one). One case under the Arms Act was also registered wherein he happens to be the informant. Manoj and Jitendra also happens to be seizure list witnesses relating to that. He had not demanded any document with regard to the house from where ganja and the light etc. were seized. In para-4 of his cross- examination, he had admitted that in Bihpur P.S.Case No.89 of 2006 these three petitioners were exonerated. That is to be taken into account in terms of para-1 of the examination-in-chief wherein he had admitted that second place of occurrence happens to be the house lying north to road being Jananikitta of Shambhu Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013 5 Singh. That means to say the place from where the articles as notified under seizure list has been recovered and seized happens to be Jananikitta of Shambhu Singh. From the evidence of this very P.W., it is evident that he had not spoken with regard to jointness of family or having been occupied by the petitioners or have seized any other item suggesting occupation of the petitioners in the aforesaid house. 9. P.W.1, the informant during examination-in-chief had supported the case of the prosecution so narrated by him in the written report. During cross-examination at para-12 he had stated that one quintal ganja, one country made pistol were seized from the house where from the articles as per seizure list was recovered and seized. In para-13 he had stated that they have taken signature of accused persons over the seizure list. Again spoken that on account of absence of accused persons, no signature was obtained over seizure list. In para-15, he has stated that house of petitioners as well as Shambhu Choudhary happens to be the same. In para-21 of the cross-examination, he has stated that the house was
Legal Reasoning
identified by the villagers and at that very time mother of Sri Choudhary was present. 10. P.W.2, P.W.5 happens to be the police personnel who have participated during course of raid and accordingly had Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013 6 reiterated the prosecution version. P.W.5 under para-3 of his cross-examination had clearly stated that the place of occurrence of both the cases is the same. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are seizure list witnesses who have not supported the factum of seizure though accepted there presence over seizure list. The most surprising feature which is visualizing from the evidence of the prosecution is that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 nay P.Ws.5 and 6 have claimed identification of the petitioners. They have not identified the accused in Court during course of evidence. On account thereof, their evidences have become worthless. Consequent thereupon, the successive judgments are set aside. Petition is allowed. Petitioners are under custody, hence, they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) B.Kr./-