Jharkhand High Court
Maku Hembram vs Saka Murmu on 16 February, 2022
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 2016
Maku Hembram, wife of Chand Suraj Soren, resident of village-Bari
Kalajuri, PO-Ghat Dumariya, PS-Godda(M), District-Godda
(Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Saka Murmu, son of Shivlal Murmu
2. Babu Murmu, son of Late Lakhiram Murmu
3. Ram Murmu, son of Shivlal Murmu
4. Durga Murmu, son of Late Palsa Murmu
5. Dulal Dulo, son of Late Kulesh Mandal
6. Baburam Murmu, son of Late Baran Murmu
7. Nasib Murmu, son of Late Patwari Murmu
8. Lakhan Murmu, son of Late Patwari Murmu
9. Coopiram Murmu, son of Late Jiten Murmu
10. Gussai Murmu, son of Late Chhota Sakala
11. Talababu Murmu, son of Late Gurujee Murmu
12. Babulal Murmu, son of Late Sawana Murmu
All are resident of village-Bari Kalyani, PO+PS-Godda(M),
District-Godda (Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties
-------
(Through V.C) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP For OP Nos.2to11 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
-------
Order No.09/Dated: 16th February, 2022 The judgment dated 14th June 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2014 is under challenge by the informant.
2. The powers of the Court under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are limited. The limitations of revisional jurisdiction are explained by the Supreme Court in "Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar" (1987) 1 SCC 288, thus:
"88. .....Section 397 gives the High Court or the Sessions Judge jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. While considering the legality, propriety or the correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally, the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. The 2 Cr. Rev.No. 1121 of 2016 court in revision considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence"
3. In "Krishnan v. Krishnaveni" (1997) 4 SCC 241 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"7. It is seen that exercise of the revisional power by the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. The Court of Sessions and the Magistrates are inferior criminal courts to the High Court and Courts of Judicial Magistrate are inferior criminal courts to the Sessions Judge. Ordinarily, in the matter of exercise of power of revision by any High Court, Section 397 and Section 401 are required to be read together. Section 397 gives powers to the High Court to call for the records as also suo motu power under Section 401 to exercise the revisional power on the grounds mentioned therein, i.e., to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court, and to dispose of the revision in the manner indicated under Section 401 of the Code. The revisional power of the High Court merely conserves the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and that its subordinate courts do not exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the power vested in them under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the inferior criminal courts or to prevent miscarriage of justice."
4. Godda (T) PS Case No.179 of 2001 was registered against 12 persons for committing offence under sections 147, 323, 324, 380, 427, 504 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Maku Hembrom who is the informant of the case made allegations against the accused that they entered her house on 9 th March 2001, formed unlawful assembly and two of them Sakla Murmu and Ram Murmu assaulted her. She further alleged that the accused committed theft and caused damage to the household properties. After the investigation charge-sheet was laid against them and they faced the trial on the charge under sections 147, 323, 324, 380, 427, 504 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses - PW5 is Dr. Binod Kumar Sah who examined Maku Hembrom on 9 th June 2001 at Sadar Hospital, Godda.
3 Cr. Rev.No. 1121 of 20165. PW5, Dr. Binod Kumar Sah, has found the following injuries on the person of Maku Hembrom:
(i) A sharp cut wound measuring 3/4" X 1/6" X 1/2" on inter digital space between first and second finger of right hand.
(ii) An abrasion 1 ½" X 1/6" on the left side of the neck.
(iii) Patterned bruises two in number measuring 3" X 1/6"
on the right side of the back.
(iv) Diffuse bruises and tenderness on left elbow joint and left forearm.
6. According to PW5, injury no.(i) was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapons.
7. From the materials on record, it appears that a plea of enmity was taken by the accused and to substantiate such plea copies of Parcha of J.B No.66 and order of Settlement Officer in Tanaja Revision No.03 of 2007 were laid in evidence. The prosecution has also laid in evidence judgment in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2009, final decree in Partition Suit No.26 of 1950, copy of charge-sheet in Godda (M) PS Case No.231 of 2005 etc.
8. The learned trial Judge by a cryptic order held that the prosecution was able to establish the charges as framed against the accused. Except extracting few sentences from evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge has not discussed truthfulness or otherwise of their evidence.
9. The learned trial Judge has held as under:
"..... After perusal of the evidence available on the record it transpires that PW-4 informant who has filed this case and has supported the version mentioning in the fardbeyan that all the accused persons have entered into the house and beaten him by means of butt of the gun and Ramu Murmu beaten her and he received injury in the finger of the informant and thereafter other accused persons also went to his house and damage the banana tree and also taken away the box and grain. The other PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also supported the version of the fardbeyan as well as statement of the PW4 who is the informant of this case. The doctor has also proved the injury, nature of injury is caused by accused persons and proved the injury report that was exhibited as Ext-2 and 2/1 respectively. No doubt there is a land dispute between the parties but due to land dispute the criminal liabilities cannot be omitted.
12. Considering the evidence and discussion available on the record, I find that the prosecution has fully established the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused are 4 Cr. Rev.No. 1121 of 2016 found guilty for the offence punishable u/s-324, 323, 347, 427, 504 and 448 of I.P.C. Their bail bond has been cancelled and taken into judicial custody."
10. The learned appellate Court after discussing the prosecution evidence in detail came to a finding that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; there is no explanation how police requisition was issued one day before registration of the First Information Report; and there is no explanation as regards delay in lodging the First Information Report. I further find that both the Courts were unanimous in opinion that there was land dispute between the parties and in this regard they were involved in Court cases.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 14 th June 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2014.
12. Criminal Revision No.1121 of 2016 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.