Palamau v. 1. State of Jharkhand; 2. Ravindra Mochi, son of Amaresh Mochi; 3. Nandu Mochi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 2022 (Against the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd November 2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau in ST Case No. 238 of 2010) ----- Mahadeo Mochi @ Mahadev Mochi, son of Late Bindeshwar Mochi, resident of Village: Jond, PO and PS: Daltonganj, District: Palamau ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand; 2. Ravindra Mochi, son of Amaresh Mochi; 3. Nandu Mochi, son of Late Bindeshwar Mochi; 4. Birendra Mochi, son of Amaresh Mochi; 5. Anil Mochi, son of Nandu Mochi. All are residents of Village: Jod, PO and PS: Sadar Daltonganj, District: Palamau, Jharkhand. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
Legal Reasoning
----- For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate -----
Decision
O R D E R 10th May 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This Acquittal Appeal has been filed by Mahadeo Mochi. He is the person on whose written complaint Sadar PS Case No.241 of 2007 was registered against Ravindra Mochi, Nandu Mochi, Birendra Mochi and Anil Mochi for committing mischief by putting his house on fire and causing damage of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Mahadeo Mochi has challenged the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons in ST Case No. 238 of 2010. 3. The learned trial Judge has held that (i) the evidence tendered by Mahadeo Mochi and his witnesses cannot be relied upon (ii) enmity between the parties is established, and (iii) witnesses are not truthful. 4. After the following discussions, the learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: “ 21. In this way on consideration of above oral and documentary evidence it appears from the facts of the matter that both parties are members of Scheduled caste. Plot no.279 was settled by the government long back in the name of the ancestors of the parties. The informant and accused Nandu Mochi and Amaresh Mochi are the full brothers who are four full brothes. After the death their common ancestors mutation has been granted in the separate 2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 2022 name of four brothers as above. It is admitted in evidence that plot no. 279 C is allotted to accused Nandu Mochi and plot no. 279 B is allotted to the informant but the informant wants plot no. 279C which is alleged to be the place of occurrence. In view of the above facts when the accused has proved by admitted document that plot no. 279 C is of the accused Nandu Mochi, the informant is legally precluded from claiming the house standing on plot no. 279 C as belonging to him and the real holder Nandu Mochi cannot be held to be guilty for any mischief upon the said plot. It is now settled law that enmity cuts both the ends but in the particular case in hand the presumption of right is in favour of the accused Nandu Mochi regarding the place of occurrence and thus the evidence of informant cannot be relied upon until it is proved to be truthful and pure. In view of the illegal interest of the informant this court finds that evidence of prosecution is not of such a degree which could be relied upon as true and pure for holding the accused persons guilty for committing such aggravated offence and thus the accused persons become entitle to get the benefit of doubts.” 5. No doubt merely because there is enmity between the parties testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected. However, wherever it is shown to the Court that the parties are at loggerheads, this puts the criminal Court on guard to scrutinize the testimony of an interested/ inimical witness with due care and caution. 6. In “Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh” (2005) 10 SCC 498 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “7. ..... The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double- edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence. ..” 7. On appreciation of the materials on record, the learned trial Court has rendered a judgment of acquittal in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 which, in our opinion, does not call for any interference by this Court. During the trial, prosecution has examined five witnesses out of whom PW4 is the informant. PW1 is the wife and PW2 is the son of the informant who have been projected as eyewitness. PW1 has admitted in her cross- examination that Nandu Mochi was claiming the land under dispute. Similarly, PW2 has stated in the Court that he lives in a separate house with his wife and children. The evidence of PW3 who is another son of the informant has also not been believed by the trial Judge. The respondents 3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 2022 have produced documentary evidence vide Ext.-A to Ext.-E series to demonstrate that the disputed lands were settled to Nandu Mochi. The respondents have examined Sumit Mishra as DW1 who has stated in the Court that there is a land dispute between the parties. 8. Having examined the materials on record, we find that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory to each other on the material aspects of the case. 9. This is well-settled practice which attained the status of rule of law that the High Court while acting as the appellate Court shall not interfere with the judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. 10. In “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” (1998) 5 SCC 412 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal.....” 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no error in the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd November 2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau in ST Case No. 238 of 2010 and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 2022 is dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the learned Court below. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated-10th May 2023 S.B.-NAFR