1. Tala Babu Murmu 2. Dineaj Murmu @ Dinesh Murmu 3. Obelal Murmu 4 v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Revision No.511 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 511 of 2010 1. Tala Babu Murmu 2. Dineaj Murmu @ Dinesh Murmu 3. Obelal Murmu 4. Babu Murmu … … Petitioners - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ ----- For the Petitioners : M/s. V. K. Tiwary, Advocate For the State : M/s. A. K. Dey, A.P.P. For the Informant : M/s. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate C.A.V. on 05.07.2023 Pronounced on 13.09.2023 ----- 1. Heard the Parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this application against the judgment dated 07.04.2010, passed by Sri A. K. Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Godda (As his Lordship was then) in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2009, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2009, passed by Sri Manish, learned J.M.F.C., Godda in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 117 of 2000, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under sections 324/ 34 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under sections 324/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for two years for the offence under sections 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned appellate court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court for the offence under section 144 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the complainant Parameshwar Soren, alleging therein that on 25.11.1999, he was present in his house when the petitioners Cr. Revision No.511 of 2010 2 variously armed came there and started abusing him and his wife. The petitioners assaulted them and also snatched away a silver chain from the wife of the complainant. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has adduced oral evidence. Petitioners have adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 5. Complainant Parmeshwar Soren has been examined as C.W.4. He has stated that about 3.5 years ago at about 07:00 p.m., he was present at his house. His wife was cooking. When the petitioners variously armed came there and assaulted him and his wife. They snatched away silver chain of his wife. He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross- examination he has stated that he had filed this case after 3 months from the date of occurrence. He has denied that there was land dispute between the parties and a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was being contested between them. 6. Sanat Marandi C.W.1. has stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in the house of the complainant. Sufal Kisku C.W.2 has stated that on 25.11.1999 at about 07:00 P.M. on Hulla he went to the house of the complainant. Haricharan Murmu C.W.3 has stated that his house is situated in front of the house of the complainant. All these witnesses have stated that the petitioners variously armed came there and assaulted the complainant and his wife and also snatched the Silver chain from the wife of the informant. They have been cross-examined at length. Sanat Marandi C.W.1 in his cross- examination has stated that he cannot say the exact date of occurrence. He has further stated that the co- accused persons had not entered together in the house of the petitioners. He has further stated that the co-accused persons did not assault the complainant but his wife was assaulted. Sufal Kisku C.W.2 has stated that the Debu Murmu took out Rs.600/- kept in the box inside the room of the informant and Tala Babu Murmu snatched the chain from the wife of the informant. In his cross-examination he has stated that Parmeshwar Soren had not sustained any injury. 7. Haricharan Murmu C.W.3 has stated in his cross-examination that he had reached the place of occurrence after 15-20 minutes. The accused Cr. Revision No.511 of 2010 3 persons had receded from there by the time he reached there. The evidence adduced by the petitioners is to the effect that there was land dispute between the parties and the petitioners were paying rent with regard to the disputed land. 8. The complainant has denied that there was land dispute between the parties. The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners had entered into his house and they assaulted him and his wife and they also snatched the silver chain from his wife. Other witnesses have corroborated the case of the complainant and stated in unison that the petitioners had entered into the house of the complainant and they assaulted his wife and also snatched the silver chain from her. There is nothing in their cross- examination to doubt their veracity. 9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I come to a finding that both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have rightly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners for the offence under sections 324/ 34 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1999 and there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners have earlier been convicted in any other offence. Accordingly, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act to the petitioners. The sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The petitioners will be released after furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below alongwith an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of 1 year failing which they shall appear before the trial court to serve the sentence as directed. 11. This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed with the modification of the sentence.
Decision
12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Saurabh Uploaded