Jharkhand High Court
Siya Sharan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 January, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2832 of 2014
.....
Siya Sharan Prasad ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Keder Prasad Sinha
3. Rajnish Kumar
4. Om Prakash Sinha
5. Gayan Prakash Sinha ... ...Opp. Parties
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State :- APP
...
07/09.01.2018The instant petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2014 passed in C. P. Case No. 167 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad whereunder the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 506, 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code also suffers from a delay of 27 days also.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and the relevant pleadings on record. The complaint from which the instant trial arose was instituted by the petitioner alleging that on 07.10.2007 when he and his family members were on their way to Baliapur, the accused persons had cut old Seesam Tree worth about Rs. 10,000/- by trespassing in their garden which they found after returning on 08.10.2007. They caused damages to the petitioner by putting him in loss. When the witness objected to cutting of the trees, they were chased out of the spot, . It was reported to Dhanbad Sadar Police Station and to the Forest Officer, Dhanbad for taking action. Department of Forest advised the petitioner to report the matter to the police. On 15.10.2007 at about 5 P. M. while the complainant was taking petrol from petrol pump adjacent to Puja Talkies, Bekar Bandh, Dhanbad with his son, accused no. 3 and other unknown persons chased the complainant and intercepted the scooter. They hurled abuses upon him and threatened to kill the entire family. When the police did not take any action on his complaint, the instant complaint was lodged for the offences under Section 341, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Upon examination of the complainant Siya Sharan Prasad and three witnesses in inquiry, the learned Court issued summon upon the accused persons to face trial. On appearance, the substance of accusation was explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and trial commenced. The complainant adduced four witnesses namely CW-1-Biranchi Kumar, CW-2- Chitranjan Kumar, CW-3-Anirud Prasad Sinha and CW-4-Siya Sharan Prasad. Defence examined three witnesses, namely DW-1- Kedar Prasad Sinha, DW-2- Rajnish Kumar Sinha and DW-3-Shravan Kumar Sinha.
Learned Trial Court considering the material evidence on record came to a finding that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Consequently, all accused persons were held not guilty and acquitted from all the charges.
From perusal of the impugned order and upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the State, we find that out of four complaint witnesses, mainly two PW- 2-Chitranjan Kumar and PW-3, Anirudha Prasad Singh claimed to be eye witness of the alleged incident. PW-1, Biranchi Kumar and PW-4 the complainant -Siya Sharan Prasad were not present at the place of occurrence. Defence on its part had adduced Ext.A, a letter written to the Officer In-charge, Hirapur Police Station, Dhanbad and Ext-B, a letter written to DFO Dhanbad whereunder they had made a request for removing the trees which was protruding towards their house. Copy of letter no. 4792 dated 29.10.2007 was also marked as exhibit for identification as per which, the DFO, Dhanbad had asked the opposite party no. 2 to request the complainant for removing the tree and if he does not remove then to cut the same. However, the incidences for which the prosecution has been lodged is reported to be taken place on 15.10.2007. Only two witnesses namely complainant and his son supported the allegation and learned Trial Court was of the view that they were highly interested witnesses. Place of occurrence of the second incident on 15.10.2007 is near Bekarbandh lake, which is a busy market place, but no independent witness supporting the incident were adduced. Learned Trial Court also found that complainant witness no. 2 Chitranjan Kumar had in fact deposed that there was dispute for way existing between complainant and the opposite party no. 2. The allegation relating to criminal intimidation and illegal confinement under Section 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code were, therefore, not established beyond all shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Having conferred our anxious consideration to the material on record and the submission of the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order, which entitles the petitioner to seek leave to appeal. We, therefore, do not find any reason to condone the delay in preferring the instant petition either. Consequently, I. A. No. 450 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/