Wasim Raja @ Wasim Raza Khan @ Waseem Raza .... .... … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manohar Azad Khan 3. Aurangjeb Khan 4. Akib
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 311 of 2019 ------ Wasim Raja @ Wasim Raza Khan @ Waseem Raza .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manohar Azad Khan 3. Aurangjeb Khan 4. Akib Javed 5. Bablu Khan 6. Sahid Akhtar .... .... .... Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
from perversity which calls for interference by this Court in view of ratio laid down in Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State through Inspector of Police & Others, (2015) 8 SCC 774 It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. (See Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] .) 6. It is further argued that it was not obligatory on the part of the informant to disclose the cases pending against him. However, he has not 2 suppressed rather had disclosed in examination-in-chief that Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.248 of 2011 was lodged against him in which he was on bail. The first appellate court’s observation and finding of suppression was therefore perverse on the point. 7. Apart from the injured witness, P.W. 3 and 4 have also corroboratory incidence in which opposite party nos.2-6 had conjointly assaulted the informant on the time, date and place of occurrence. 8. Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos.2-6 have defended the order of acquittal. It is submitted by learned counsel that there appears vital contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which have been noted by the both the courts below. There was contradictions between medical evidence and ocular evidence. The injuries were superficial in nature whereas the injured (P.W. 1) has deposed that he was conjointly assaulted by butt of revolver and knife resulting in the said injury. 9. On the point of law, it is further submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact in favour of the petitioners and the scope of interference by the revisional court against the order of acquittal is limited one. Reliance is placed
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. For the State For the O.P. Nos.2-6 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate ------ Order No.09 Dated : 20.06.2024 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of acquittal passed in Cr. Appeal No.294 of 2018 by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the informant affirmed with the finding of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. 2. Ranchi Sadar Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.247/2011 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party nos.2-6 on a written report of the informant-Wasim Raja. 3. As per the F.I.R., on 05.09.2011 at around 1.45 hour, Manohar Azad Khan @ Babu, Aurangjeb Khan @ Bhola, Shahid Akhtar @ Mintu, Akib Javed and Bablu conjointly assaulted him with the butt of pistol and knife, resulting in serious injury to him over his hand and legs. He was rescued when police officer D.B. Singh came at the place of occurrence. The genesis of offence is stated to be land dispute which had been captured by the accused persons. It was also alleged that Rs.50,000/- cash, gold chain and wrist watch were snatched by them. 4. Police on investigation, found the case true and the accused persons were put on trial after cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the IPC. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and relevant documents including injury report were adduced into evidence and marked as 1 exhibit. 5. Learned trial court acquitted accused persons on the ground that independent witnesses were not examined although injury report was proved, but incidence could not be established as no witness was eye witness. Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner affirmed the judgment of acquittal on the ground that one counter case for the same offence was lodged by one Aasif Javed against the informant and one Javed Akhtar being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.248 of 2011 under Sections 341, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and these facts were suppressed by the informant party of the present case. The learned appellate court also noted the material contradictions between the ocular evidence as established by the I.O. (P.W. 6) at para 10 and 11 of the cross- examination. In view of the infirmity between the parties, false implication could not be ruled out. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that there are patent perversity in the order of acquittal passed by both the courts below. Informant of the case is Wasim Raja, who was injured in the incidence which has been established by the injury report proved and marked as Exhibit 2 by the Doctor (P.W. 5). The injured was examined as P.W. 1 and he has specifically stated about the complicity of the opposite parties that they had conjointly assaulted, resulting in injury. Despite this, it was surprisingly noted that there was no direct eye witness to the incidence. This finding suffered