The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 981 of 2015 1. Sita Ram Mehta, 2. Rabindra Mehta @ Rabindra Kumar Mehta ------ Both residents of Village – Shilapar, P.O. and P.S. – Mohammadganj, District – Palamau. The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioners .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------
Legal Reasoning
made against the petitioners only on suspicion. It is settled law that suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot take place of legal proof, which has been ignored by both the trial court as well as appellate court in this case. It is admitted case of prosecution that neither the dead body of ox nor any particles of bone eaten by wild animals have been recovered and seized in this case. There is no iota of evidence at all showing that the present petitioners have inflicted blows and killed the white ox of the informant. It is further submitted that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 are interested witnesses, who have given bald assertion about killing of ox without any link or evidence showing the connection of the present petitioners in killing the said animal and P.W. – 4 & 5 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. D.W.-1 is also not an eye-witness of the occurrence, but inspite of scanty and unreliable evidence, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced. Hence, the judgment passed by the both the courts below suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that both the courts below have aptly analyzed and appreciated the evidence of ocular witnesses and arrived at right conclusion. There is concurrent finding of facts against the petitioners and there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. Page 3 of 6 8. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. Since the question of perversity has been raised in holding the petitioners guilty and their sentence, it is desirable to apprise with the evidence adduced in this case. P.W.-1 Punia Devi is not an eye witness of the occurrence, rather she has given bald statement that on the date of occurrence her ox was drinking water in the river meanwhile Rabindra Mehta and Sita Ram Mehta killed the ox by assaulting with lathi. Although she claims that at the time of occurrence, she was taking bath in river and there were several cattle grazing, but admittedly, the FIR was lodged after dead body of the ox had decayed and nothing was found and no remains of dead body but only the carcass only was found. P.W.-2 Rampravesh Choudhary has also claimed to have seen the occurrence, but admitted that FIR was lodged on the next day. He also claims that other villagers have seen the occurrence, but he could not state their names. P.W.-3 Ramkeshwar Choudhary, who is the informant of this case, has also stated that his ox was killed by present petitioners, but he lodged case next day in the police station. His attention has been drawn towards material contradictions regarding statement before Page 4 of 6 police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. where he has not supported the case as an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.-4 Rajendra Gupta and P.W.-5 Soti Sao have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. The defence has also examined one witness namely, Indradeo Mehta. According to his evidence, informant, Ramkeshwar Choudhary came to his house in search of his ox and this witness disclosed that his ox has not come in his village. Thereafter, next day, this false case was lodged against Rabindra Mehta and Sita Ram Mehta. Above facts has not been controverted by prosecution in cross-examination of this case. Hence, the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced in their defence. The learned trial court and appellate court have also not considered the unrebutted evidence of defence witness. The delay in lodging the FIR has also not been reasonably explained. There is no cogent and reliable evidence of killing the ox of the informant by the present petitioners. No remaining of carcass of the dead ox was ever found and seized in this case nor any independent witness has been examined to corroborate the prosecution story about genesis and manner of occurrence. The whole prosecution story appears to be shrouded with doubt, which has not been considered by both the courts below. It appears that both the courts below have ignored the aforesaid facts of this case and relied upon the examination-in-chief of the interested witness. Therefore, the judgments and order passed by the learned trial court Page 5 of 6 and the learned appellate court suffers from perversity and the same cannot be legally sustained. 10. In view of discussions and reasons, the impugned judgments and order of both the courts below are set aside and the revision is allowed. Petitioners are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 11. Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 24/06/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 6 of 6
Arguments
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ------ ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 03.04.2024 Pronounced On 24.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in Trial No. 620 of 2007 arising out of Mohammadganj P.S. Case No. 21 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 852 of 2005, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence under Section 429 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were further sentenced to S.I. for one month, has been dismissed. Page 1 of 6 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 01.06.2005, informant was grazing his cattle near river Koel, Mohammadganj, and watering cattle in the river, meanwhile, the present petitioners killed one white colour ox by assaulting with lathi and also stated that the said ox has grazed their field and destroyed moong crops. It is further alleged that carcass of the ox was eaten by dogs and jackals, hence the post mortem was not conducted. On the basis of above information, FIR was instituted for the offence under Section 429 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners and charge sheet was submitted by the police after investigation of the case. Petitioners / convicts appeared and denied charges and claimed for trial. 4. After conclusion of trial, present petitioners were held guilty for the offence under Section 429 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. 5. Assailing their conviction and sentence, the petitioners had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj and vide judgment dated 04.04.2015, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and their conviction and sentence was upheld and confirmed, which has been assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that admittedly none of the prosecution witness examined in this case are eye witness of the occurrence, rather accusations have been Page 2 of 6