Ramesh Mukherjee v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sweta Kumari @ Beli Kumari
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1192 of 2015 Ramesh Mukherjee … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sweta Kumari @ Beli Kumari ------ ... … Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For Petitioner For the Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Amicus Curiae 08/18.09.2023 Heard the parties. --- 2. The petitioner Ramesh Mukherjee has filed this revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.08.2015, passed by Sri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2011, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2011, passed by Sri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.831 of 2007, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 341, 323, 506, 448, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one month for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. S.I. for six months each for offences under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for two years for the offences under Sections 506 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run-concurrently. Period already undergone by the petitioner during trial was set off. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by the prosecutrix alleging therein that on 28.04.2007 at about 2:00 P.M., she had gone to fetch water from tube well, where the petitioner accosted her and started making loose talks. When the complainant protested, he caught hold of her, dragged her towards a nearby lane and thereafter, caught hold of her breast. When the complainant raised alarm, her mother came there and started abusing the petitioner, on which the other accused persons also came there and started assaulting the complainant and her mother. Complaint was made to the -2- father of the petitioner, on which all the accused persons became agitated, they entered into the house of the complainant and the assaulted her father. 4. In order to prove its case, the opposite party No.2 has adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 5. Ganga Devi C.W.3 and Uttam Kumar C.W.4 have not appeared for their cross-examination after charge and as such, their statement cannot be read in evidence against the petitioner. 6. The opposite party No.2 has been examined as C.W.2. She has supported the statement as made out in the complaint case and has stated that she had gone to fetch water from village tube well. The petitioner accosted her and started making vulgar conversation with her. When she protested, petitioner dragged her to a nearby lane and caught hold of her breast. In the meantime, her mother came there, when she protested all the other accused persons came there and assaulted her mother and father. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had gone to police station on the same day, but no complaint was registered. This complaint case was filed after one month from the date of occurrence. At paragraph-9 of her deposition, she has stated that the petitioner had physically assaulted her for about one hour, but she did not raise any alarm. She has further stated that in the meantime her mother came there, when she started abusing, all the accused persons assaulted her and her mother. Thereafter, they went to her house and also assaulted her father. She has stated that there is documentary evidence to prove that she had gone to police station to institute a police case and she can file the document to this effect. No document has been filed to show that the matter was reported to the police station on the same day. 7. Budhan Rai C.W.1 has supported the case of the opposite party No.2 and stated that she had gone to fetch water from village tube well when the petitioner molested her. The opposite party No.2 fled away from the place of occurrence raising alarm, on which mother of the opposite party No.2 came there and protested, thereafter, the accused persons -3- assaulted her and her mother. 8. From the oral testimony of the witnesses of the opposite party No.2, it is apparent that there is contradiction in statement of both Budhan Rai C.W.1 and that of opposite party No.2 (C.W.2). Budhan Rai C.W.1 has stated that the opposite party No.2 fled away from the place of occurrence raising alarm, thereafter her mother came there. The matter was reported to the family members of the petitioner. They became agitated and assaulted the complainant and her family members. This statement of Budhan Rai C.W.1 is contradictory to the statement made by complainant/ opposite party No.2 (C.W.2), who has stated that her mother had come to the place of occurrence and seen the petitioner molesting her. She has specifically stated that she had not raised any alarm at the time of occurrence. There is delay of one month in filing of the complaint case. Though the opposite party No.2 has stated that she has gone to police station and there is documentary evidence to this effect and she can adduce the document in evidence, but no document has been filed. 9. In view of the fact that there is contradiction in the statement of the opposite party No.2 and another witnesses on the manner of occurrence and also the fact that there is delay in lodging this complaint case, which has not been properly explained, I am of the opinion that the opposite party No.2 has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. 10. The criminal revision application is allowed.
Decision
11. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 12. Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by him. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)