Sant Kumar Chauhan v. State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Nov 2022
- Bench
- DEEPAK ROSHAN
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the instant application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 376, 379, 420, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR, it appears that the learned trial court had erred in convicting the petitioner and rejecting the defense. Even the appellate court had failed to notice infirmity the prosecution case. The prosecution…
- Para 88. Consequently, the instant application is allowed. The judgment dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2010 and 7 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
Judgment
to run concurrently, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The prosecution story as per the written report is that the informant is a widow and is an employee of BCCL. On 08.05.2008 at 12 Noon, she had gone to Damoda Colliery Office where she was earlier posted and went into the chamber of the personnel manager. The personnel 2 manager was absent, but the petitioner was sitting there alone who was earlier a colleague of the informant and is working as clerk in the colliery. It is further alleged that the petitioner asked the informant that on 05.06.2008, the charge is going to be framed against him and asked her to compromise the case, but she denied to compromise. Thereafter, the petitioner became angry and assaulted her by fist and slaps and when she raised alarm, other employees working in their offices came there and saved her. In the meantime, the petitioner took away a golden chain from her neck and also took away her purse containing Rs. 700/-. The petitioner also threatened her for expelling her from the job and kill her. The informant stated the reason behind the occurrence that earlier the petitioner had sexually exploited her in good faith with a promise to marry her, but when she pressurized him to marry, the petitioner took attemp to kill her by administering poison to her, for which she has lodged Dugda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007 against the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant stated in her written report that the charge in 1st criminal case i.e. in Dugda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007 is going to be framed under Section 376, 420, 506 IPC on
05.06.2008, but in fact the charge was framed on 3
10.09.2009 i.e., after about 15 months; as such the basis of the written report itself was mala-fide. She further submits that neither the place of occurrence, nor the time of the occurrence has been proved by the prosecution. As per the informant (PW-3), the place of occurrence was the chamber of the Personnel Manager, Damoda Colliery, but as per the Investigating Officer (PW-4), the place of occurrence was the room which was shared by authorities with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that all the 03 defense witnesses i.e., DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 were employees of BCCL, and were posted at the alleged place of occurrence and they have categorically deposed in court that no occurrence as alleged had ever taken place in their office. She further submits that the Investigating Officer deposed that the matter of theft is hearsay, as all witnesses examined during investigation were hearsay witnesses. Therefore, Section 379 of IPC was omitted in the charge-sheet initially, but this section was added later on after taking some prosecution evidence. She further referred to a judgment in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where a criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with a view to malice the accused due to private and personal grudge, 4 power under section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to secure the ends of justice. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that there should not be abuse of process of law and this case is an example for abuse of process of law and both the courts below have failed appreciate this issue.
Learned Addl. P.P opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR, it appears that the learned trial court had erred in convicting the petitioner and rejecting the defense. Even the appellate court had failed to notice infirmity the prosecution case. The prosecution could not prove the charge under sections 323 and 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt for following reasons: (i) As per the informant, the place of occurrence was the chamber of the Personnel Manager, Damoda Colliery, but as per the IO, the place of occurrence was the room where other officials/employees used to share room with the petitioner and the defense witnesses have categorically deposed before the court below that no occurrence as alleged had ever taken place in their office. Thus, prosecution was not able to prove the place of occurrence. 5 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim versus State of A.P., reported in (2006) 10 SCC 601 has held as under.
"11......Though the FIR is not a substantive evidence yet, the same can be used to test the veracity of the witness. PW 1 accepted that what was stated in the FIR was correct. When the place of occurrence itself has not been established it would not be proper to accept the prosecution version. " (ii) The prosecution could not bring anything on record to prove the charge under section 379 IPC as the investigating officer himself deposed that the matter of theft is hearsay, as all witnesses examined during investigation were hearsay witnesses. Even the theft article was not recovered. As per settled principal of law hearsay evidence is no evidence barring few exceptions. The evidence and circumstances appearing in the case at hand are not of conclusive nature to establish the guilt of the petitioner. (iii) Since there was no eye witness in the case as such there should be a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; which is lacking in the instant case.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhim Singh versus State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 281 has held as under. "22. In the present case, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be adduced from the circumstantial 6 evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is more or less well settled. This Court in a plethora of judgments has held that when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 8 SCC 18: 2003 SCC (Cri) 186] is one of such cases. On the question of any reasonable hypothesis, this Court has held that if some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But in assessing the evidence, imaginary possibilities have no place.
The Court considers ordinary human probabilities. " (iv) In criminal jurisprudence, it is a settled principle of law that the charge has to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts which is again lacking in the instant case. (v) Last but not the least, the three chargesheet witness were not examined by the prosecution; but they were examined by the defense, and all have supported the case of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the finding given by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is perverse in nature.
Operative part
Consequently, the instant application is allowed. The judgment dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2010 and 7 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 328 of 2008 (T.R. No. 648 of 2010), are hereby, quashed and set aside.
The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of Bail Bonds.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer- in-charge of concerned police station.
Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Amardeep/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the instant application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 376, 379, 420, 506; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Jharkhand High Court, on 25 Nov 2022. The bench was DEEPAK ROSHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.