The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 73 of 2023 ----- (Against the judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed in complaint Case No.1033 of 1999 arising out of T.R. No. 1101 of 2023 by the court of Ms. Seema Kumari Minj, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih) Basudeo Pandey --- --- Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sakuntala Devi 3.Babulal Singh 4.Nishikant Prasad ….... --- --- Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kant Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR J U D G M E N T 12.02.2024 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2023
Facts
passed in complaint Case No.1033 of 1999 arising out of T.R. No. 1101 of 2023 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under the respondent no.2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 465,467,468 and 506 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint case No. 1033 of 1999 instituted by the complainant/ appellant Basudeo Pandey is as under: The appellant has been in peaceful possession over the land and has been receiving the agricultural produce and paying rent to the Bihar Government. Sahdeo Pandey, his wife Sakuntala Devi, his sons Binay Kumar Pandey and Pawan Kumar Pandey and brother-in-law of Sahdeo Pandey, namely, Bambam Upadhyay with intention to usurp the land of the appellant prepared illegal deed dated 15.12.1990 in the Registry Office Jamua having deed no. 7858 of area 11 decimal in favour of Sakuntala Devi with connivance with deed writer Babulal Singh, witness Nishikant Prasad and one Naresh Kumar Sinha. It is further alleged that 2 knowingly and willingly making illegal deed usurping the lands of the appellant. When the accused Sakuntala Devi went to Jamua Circle Office for getting mutation of the said land then Circle Inspector came to plot for inspection then appellant came to know the said illegal act of the accused persons. Since Sahdeo Pandey, husband of the accused Sakuntala Devi had died in the year 1997, he has not been made accused in this case. It has further been alleged that on 11.09.1999 when the appellant along with his near and dear ones went to acused nos. 1 to 3, then they were threatened by the accused persons, hence, the complaint case no. 1033 of 1999 has been lodged by the appellant against the accused persons. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint case the learned Court below
Legal Reasoning
finding the prima facie case to be true, summoning order was issued on 28.09.2019 against respondent no.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120B,465,467,468 and 506 of the IPC and thereafter charge was framed on 24.03.2009 against the respondent no.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120B,465,467,468,506 of the IPC which was explained to them but they denied to plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent no.2 to 4, which is under challenge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant: 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant has submitted that the learned court below did not appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant/ appellant including the documentary evidences and oral evidences. It has been pointed out that without considering the oral and documentary evidences the learned court below has acquitted the respondent no.2 to 4 whereas the complainant – P.W.1 has fully supported the prosecution case but without considering the aforesaid fact, the learned court below has acquitted the respondent no.2 to 4 by the impugned judgment. It has further been submitted that the depositions of P.W.1, 2 , 3 and 4 have fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial court without considering those evidences have acquitted the respondent no.2 3
Decision
to 4 and therefore, the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and fit to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State. 07. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant/ appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and did not find any corroboration of the offence punishable under Section 120B, 465,467,468,506 of the IPC and therefore, respondent no. 2 to 4 have been rightly acquitted by the learned Trial Court as there is no legal point to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Appraisal & Findings 08. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case. 09. It is found that the by the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1033 of 1999 corresponding to T.R. No. 1101 of 2023, the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has acquitted the respondent no.2 to 4 of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 465,467,468,506 of the IPC. 10. Since the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, therefore, the appellant should have preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in view of the categorical provision of law as enunciated under the provision of Section 372 Cr. P.C., which reads as under: “372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.” 11. Here the appellant is the complainant of the complaint case No. 1033 of 1999, which ended in acquitted of respondent no.2 to 4 and therefore, the complainant / appellant has very much right to avail the provision of law as provided in the proviso under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C by filing appeal before the learned Court of Sessions Judge inasmuch as the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed by the 4 court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih. 12. Further, it is found that the learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire documentary and oral evidences and rightly found that there is no iota of evidence for instituting offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B,465,467,468, 506 of the IPC and therefore, the respondent no. 2 to 4 have been rightly acquitted. Further, from perusal of the record, it appears that the deed in question, which is said to have been fraudulently and dishonestly executed by the respondent no.2 to 4 in connivance with each other as far as back in the year 1990 but the complaint case, appears from the title itself, has been filed in the year 1999 after the gap of about 9 years. Further, it also appears that both the parties are ‘gotias’ (cousins) and related to each other and the partition has taken place as far back as in the year 1966 by the father of the complainant, which is an admitted fact. It is further found that the land in dispute is the ancestral property for which several cases on earlier occasion were instituted as evident from the following documents: I. Ext. A- Certified copy of decree of Title Suit No. 164 of 1999. II. Ext.B-Judgment of T.S. No. 164 of 1999 III. Ext.C-True copy of order passed in Complaint Petition No. 1271 of 2001. IV. Ext. D- Order Sheet of T.S. No.76 of 2000 from 10.04.2000 to 06.02.2008 V. Ext.E- Certified copy of plaint made in T.S. No. 76 of 2000. VI. Ext. F-Certified copy of written statement filed in T.S. No. 76 of 2000. All the aforesaid documents have been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 4 Further the complainant/ appellant has also brought on record several documents as under: I. Ext.1- Signature of the complainant in the complaint petition. II. Ext.2- Certified copy of sale deed no. 7858 dated 18.08.1999 III. Ext.3-Certified copy of sale deed no. 10028/1976 dated 26.08.1975 IV. Ext.4-Certified copy of Khatian Khata no. 23, Mauza Simratanr. 5 V. Ext.5-Govt. rent receipt no. 0588520 VI. Ext.6/1-Attested copy of school registration no. 28/29 VII. Ext.6/2-School registration 1990, total page-76 13. Further, it appears that the learned court below after appreciating of the aforesaid documents and the testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant and the documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant /appellant has miserably failed to substantiate the charges against the proposed accused / respondent no.2 to 4 in absence of any kind of conspiracy to commit the offence punishable under Section 120B,465,467,468 and 506 of the IPC. 14. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and appreciated the evidences as adduced in the lower court below, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. 15. Accordingly, the Acquittal Appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. 16. Let the copy of the judgment be transmitted to the learned Court below. (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty