Jharkhand High Court
Shanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 11 October, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 (1) AJR 183
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B.B. Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 871 of 2017
.....
Shanti Devi --- ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gopal Rajwar
3. Dhiren Rajwar
4. Pagal Rajwar
5. Nepal Rajwar ------ Opp. Parties
---
CORAM:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.B. Mangalmurti
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra
----
06/11.10.2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 8th February 2017 passed in C.P. Case No.759 of 2011 / T.R. No.570 of 2017 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class at Dhanbad.
From perusal of the impugned judgment and the relevant materials on record it emerges that the accused persons are cousins-in-law of the complainant. They have a land dispute between them as well. As per a settlement between the parties, property was partitioned and both parties took their respective shares. In this background the complainant alleged that at 7 P.M. on 21st April 2011 all the accused persons entered the house of the complainant when she was alone. They snatched and tore the blouse of the complainant and also beat her mercilessly. In the meantime, Kalsi and silver chain of the complainant was also snatched. On arrival of the witnesses the accused persons fled away after giving threat to the husband of the complainant and his family members. The accused persons were summoned by the learned court after finding a prima-facie case under Sections 448, 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on examination of the complainant on SA and three other inquiry witnesses. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 2 nd January 2017. C.W.1 is Sandhya Rai who stated that all accused persons entered the house of the complainant and assaulted her. Accused Pagal Rajwar snatched the chain of the complainant -2- while accused Nepal Rajwar snatched utensils of the complainant. She is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. In para-8 of her cross-examination she stated that the dispute is related to partition of land. She further stated at para-9 that nobody went to the Police Station after incidence. She also stated in cross-examination that she was not present at the time of the incidence. C.W.2 Kailash Rajwar is the husband of the complainant Shanti Devi who in his statement made the same assertion about the accused persons that they entered the house of the complainant and when this witness reached the house he saw accused abusing the complainant. He has stated that Pagal Rajwar took silver chain from the neck of the complainant while Nepal Rajwar took utensils. He also stated that accused are his cousins. The matter was not reported to the Police. The complainant Shanti Devi has examined herself as C.W.3 and stated about incidence that occurred on 21 st April, 2011. When she was at home, all the accused persons entered her house and started abusing and assaulting her. The silver chain of complainant was taken by Pagal Rajwar while Nepal Rajwar took utensils. Pagal Rajwar tore her blouse. She stated that she has not gone to the Police Station after the incidence. The last witness is Charu Rajwain C.W. 4 who in her examination-in-chief stated that all the accused persons entered the house and were making a scene regarding the possession of land. This witness was on her way when she heard the noise and entered the house of complainant. Pagal Rajwar snatched the chain from the complainant while Nepal Rajwar took utensils. This witness has further stated that the complainant is her daughter-in-law and Pagal Rajwar is the son of her Bhaisur (elder brother-in-law).
The learned court has examined the material evidence on record and found that the allegations on the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. has not been supported by any other witnesses. The husband of the complainant claims to have reached the place of occurrence immediately but in his deposition he has not made any statement relating to the allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant-wife or that her blouse was torn. The learned trial court, therefore, has disbelieved the allegations in that regard. The learned trial court has also analyzed the evidence in relation to the allegations for the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 379 I.P.C. and come to a finding that they are not fit to be relied upon to render a finding of -3- guilt against the accused persons as no independent witness has corroborated the incidence. The parties are relatives and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. The learned trial court has also observed that the complainant has never reported the incidence to the Police Station and straightway approached the Court by way of the complaint.
We also find from the statements made at paragraph-4 of the instant petition that though the incidence is alleged to have occurred at 7 P.M. on 21st April, 2011 but the Complaint Case No.759 of 2011 was filed only on 25th April 2011 i.e. after a gap of four days without any cogent explanation.
Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties in the aforesaid light, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Shamim/