1. Rabindra Murmu, aged about 32 years, Son of Dhaneshwar Murmu. 2. Agastrin Murmu v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 366 of 2019 1. Rabindra Murmu, aged about 32 years, Son of Dhaneshwar Murmu. 2. Agastrin Murmu, aged about 35 years, Son of Dhaneshwar Murmu. Both are Resident of Village-Ero, P.O. + P.S.- Kathikund, District- Dumka. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the State 09/19th April 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. PP 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 15.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2017 whereby learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have been convicted vide judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 184 of 2012 and T.R. Case No. 32 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced with a fine of Rs. 300/-(Section 323) and 200/-(Section 341) with default clause. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount but so far as the conviction is concerned, it calls for interference. He submits that all the witnesses are close relatives and are interested witnesses. He further submits that the Investigating Officer of the 1 case has not been examined. He submits that under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State while opposing the prayer of the petitioners has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity or any material irregularity in the judgments passed by both the learned Courts. He further submits that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the learned Courts after scrutinizing the materials and merely because the witnesses are the relatives that by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. Further he submits that no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the FIR was instituted on behalf of the informant who is a resident of Kathikund by stating that his mother has no brother and they were three sisters; the mother had a share in the property of Dhaneshwar Murmu; in that regard, a Panchayati was held for the share of his mother. However, on 15.02.2012 at about 5:30 PM, the informant had gone to Bitia Murmu for a welfare news and on that time Ravindra Murmu and Agastin Murmu started abusing and assaulting him with fists and stick, as a result of which, he suffered injury and the blood was oozing out from the injury. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the charge was framed on 20.02.2013 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution examined four witnesses including the injured witnesses and the informant himself was an injured witness. The P.W-4 was declared hostile by the prosecution whose statement was not taken by the police. The other three prosecution witnesses fully supported the case and were cross examined but their evidence remained intact. 8. The prosecution evidence was closed on 06.07.2017 and the statement of the accused was recorded on 07.07.2017 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and no defence witness was led by them. 2 9. The learned trial Court was of the view that the prosecution succeeded to prove the occurrence and offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt as the informant was stopped by the accused persons from proceeding in the direction he wanted to go. The prosecution also succeeded to prove the occurrence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. 10. However, so far as the other sections are concerned, the learned trial court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt and ultimately convicted the petitioners only for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them by imposing only fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 323 and Rs. 200/- under Section 341 with default of sentences. 11. The appellate court has also scrutinized the materials, discussed the evidences on record and recorded the following findings in paragraph 13 and 14 while dismissing the appeal: - “13. From careful scrutinizing and analyzing the evidences adduced on behalf of prosecution, it is apparent that only P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution story, but P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 have supported the prosecution case and clearly stated about the assault committed by the accused to the informant Suresh Hembrom. It is admitted fact that on the alleged date of occurrence when the informant had come to the house of his Mousi, at that time Ravindra Murmu and Agastin Murmu have assaulted to the informant with lathi-dunda, who sustained injury and due to which blood was oozing and got his treatment in Kathikund hospital and thereafter the written report has been given before the Kathikund P.S. Therefore, the prosecution has fully established his case. 14. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned court below who has found guilty the accused persons for the offence u/s 323, 341 I.P.C. So far as the sentence is concerned the learned court below has taken very lenient view in awarding the sentence fine of Rs.300/- & 200/- to the accused persons/appellants which has already been deposited by the appellants. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned court below and sentenced passed by the learned court below is very minimum. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned court below is hereby confirmed and it requires no interference of this court.” 12. Concurrent finding with regard to the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code have been recorded. This Court has gone through the impugned judgments and is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioners under the 3 aforesaid sections beyond all reasonable doubts. Merely because the witnesses are relatives, the same by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. The evidences of the witnesses have been carefully considered by both the learned courts. The witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and non- examination of the Investigating Officer is also not fatal to the case inasmuch as the informant is the victim of the occurrence and has fully supported the prosecution case and has been duly cross examined. 13. There is no scope of reappreciating the evidences on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any perversity. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgements calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present revision application is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through ‘e- mail/FAX’. Aditi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4