Shaktipada Mahto S/O Late Rabindranath Mahto, Resident of village-and P.O. Bara Chikra, P.S. Patamda v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr. Rev. No.1078 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1078 of 2015 ------ Shaktipada Mahto S/O Late Rabindranath Mahto, Resident of village-and P.O. Bara Chikra, P.S. Patamda, District-East Singhbhum .... …. Petitioner .... Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pandey Pradip Nath Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, Adv. Ms. Arti Roy, Adv. : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P ------ 09/Dated: 19th February, 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No.214 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7th July, 2009 passed in G.R. Case No.2545 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code has been affirmed, however the petitioner has been released on due admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that FIR was lodged against the petitioner by his own wife stating inter alia that on 08.10.2007 at about 4:00 pm, while the informant was returning after attending the court at Jamshedpur in connection with Misc. Case No.07 of 2007 and when she reached near Chandinagar, the present petitioner 2 Cr. Rev. No.1078 of 2015 along with two unknown persons assaulted her and tried to snatch the child from her lap. However, the informant was rescued by her co-villagers from parental side and she was safely returned to her parental home. 4. After the above incident, a formal FIR being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.127 of 2007 dated 09.10.2007 was registered against the present petitioner and two unknown persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, the concerned investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner under Sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, whereas, the case was not found true against other two unknown persons. Charge has been framed and after the trial petitioner has been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. However, instead of awarding the sentence, petitioner has been released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offender Act. Petitioner has preferred the appeal being Cr. Appeal No.214 of 2009 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against which the present criminal revision has been filed. 5. Mr. P.P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and beyond the material evidence available on record. Learned court below has improperly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusion, which has also been affirmed by learned appellate court without considering the material contradiction appearing in the evidence of the witnesses. It is further submitted that earlier the informant of this case, namely Chandana Mahto has lodged a case under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and she, 3 Cr. Rev. No.1078 of 2015 again with a view to put pressure upon the petitioner (husband) and his family members, has lodged this case. 6. It is further submitted that no injury report was available on record showing any injury inflicted to the informant, which was totally manipulated case and the petitioner underwent agony of trial and convicted for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Although, the petitioner has been admonished and released but still, the stigma is attached with him. In the above premises, it is
Decision
submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the courts below have very wisely and depthly appreciated the oral evidence of the witnesses. 8. It is further pleaded by learned counsel for the State that in case of section 323 of Indian Penal Code proof of injury report in all cases is not necessary and the injured witness has remain firm in her examination and cross- examination. The petitioner happens to be husband of the victim lady. Therefore, both learned courts below have rightly held the petitioner guilty however taking lenient view have extended the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released him after due admonition. As such the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, the instant criminal revision has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record along with impugned judgments and consider the factual matrix giving rise to this revision. 4 Cr. Rev. No.1078 of 2015 However, so far the scope of interference, though criminal revision against the conviction is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in center of its decision has held that the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204, has held paras 10 & 11 as under: “10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well- founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 11. This Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015] the scope of reappreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under : (SCC pp. 333-34) , while dealing with “9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 5 Cr. Rev. No.1078 of 2015 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. ‘9. … The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of (Vide Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad [Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136] , SCC p. 139, para 9)” law or procedure.’ 10. Since, the petitioner has not raised any pure question of law or mixed question of law and facts which are exceptional in nature required to be entered into merit of this case by appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial court. Therefore, this court is restraining itself to disturb the finding of the conviction by both the courts below. 11. So far order of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already been released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offender Act, as such no interference in the impugned judgment is required. 12. Thus, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit is dismissed. 13. Let the copy of this order along with L.C.R. be sent to court below. Pappu/N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)