Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... vs Raju Singh on 8 August, 2023
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Acquittal Appeal No. 32 of 2020
The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum
at Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S. & District - East Singhbhum
......Appellant
Versus
1. Raju Singh, S/o Late Lalan Singh
2. Akhilesh Singh, S/o Late Lalan Singh
3. Raj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Lalan Singh
4. Lalu Singh @ Ajay Singh, S/o Late Lalan Singh
5. Chhotu Yadav @ Shyamlal Yadav S/o Late Mahabir Yadav
All are Resident of Shastri Nagar, Block No. - 1, P.O. & P.S. -
Kadma, District - East Singhbhum ... Acquitted Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For the Respondents :
---------------
Order No. 05/ Dated: 08th August 2023 The judgment dated 16th April 2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.354 of 2013 has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand by filing this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. In Sessions Trial No. 354 of 2013, Ajay Singh @ Lalu Singh has been convicted under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and granted benefits under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
3. This acquittal appeal is directed against the acquittal of Raju Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Akhilesh Singh and Chottu Yadav of the charges under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 504 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and the acquittal of Lalu Singh of the aforesaid offences except under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Kadma P.S. Case No.28 of 2010 was lodged on the basis of a written report submitted by Pappu Sonker on 14th March 2010 alleging that around 4.30 p.m. the accused persons Akhilesh Singh and Raj Kumar Singh tried to snatch his golden chain and when his brothers Babloo Sonker and Anand Sonker tried to intervene Lalu Singh assaulted him with iron rod and fled away. The informant has further 2 stated that after some time Lalan Singh, Akhilesh Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Lalu Singh, Raju Singh and Chhotu Yadav along with 8-10 unknown persons came, committed marpit and fled away firing shots by revolver. After the investigation a charge sheet was laid against Raju Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Akhilesh Singh, Lalu Singh and Chhotu Yadav and, as noticed above, they faced the trial in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 2013.
5. The defence set up by the accused persons is that there was a long standing enmity with the informant and his family and on 14th March 2010 the informant and his brothers tried to outrage modesty of Veena Devi wife of Shyam Lal and, in respect thereof, Kadma P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 was lodged.
6. In essence, the defence set up by the aforementioned accused persons is that as a counter blast to Kadma P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 a false criminal case was lodged against them.
7. The informant who examined himself as PW 8 is supported by his brothers and other prosecution witnesses on the point that the accused persons tried to snatch golden ring from him and committed marpit in the evening of 14th March 2010. PW 1 has denied any knowledge about registration of Kadma P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 registered against Babloo Sonker and Anand Sonker on the allegation that they abused, assaulted and tried to outrage modesty of Veena Devi. PW 2 who according to the prosecution was taking tea at the shop of Ganesh in the same evening has admitted in his cross-examination that he lives at Dhatkidih Medical Basti which is at a distance of 3 kilometers from Shastrinagar. As PW 3, the brother of the informant has tendered evidence against complicity of the accused persons in the crime but, at the same time, he has admitted in the cross-examination that he is working at Gamhariya which is about 15-16 kilometers from Shastrinagar. He has also admitted two criminal cases against him. Another brother of the informant who has examined himself as PW 4 admitted in the Court that he was sent to judicial custody for mounting deadly assaults on Lalu Singh; he was also in judicial custody in connection to a case registered under the Arms Act. He has further admitted that he was sent to jail in connection to the case relating to 3 molestation of the wife of Chhotu Singh. PW 5 has also criminal background and PW 6 has admitted that his fruit shop is at Parsudih market at a distance of 7 kilometers from Shastrinagar. He has also admitted that in connection to a case filed by Lallan Prasad he was sent to judicial custody and, that, on 14th March 2010 Lallan Singh has filed another case which is pending trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 387 of 2012 (arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010). PW 7 who claimed that he was present in the evening of 14 th March 2010 at the tea shop of Ganesh has stated that his statement was recorded about 20-25 days after the occurrence.
8. As PW 10, Dr. Lalit Minz has examined Pappu Sonker, Babloo Sonker and Anand Sonker around 6:05 p.m. on 14th March 2010 and found several injuries on their person. However, the investigating officer who was examined as PW 11 has admitted in the Court that there is no detail available in the records about sending Pappu Sonker, Anand Sonker and Babloo Sonker for medical examination; and there is no detail of the injuries caused to them recorded in the case-diary.
9. From the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, this is quite apparent that presence of some of the witnesses has been challenged on the ground that they were either residing or working at a far of place and they have failed to establish their presence at the tea stall of Ganesh around 4:30 p.m. on 14th March 2010. This is also the prosecution's own evidence that some of the witnesses had criminal antecedent. There are references of several criminal cases vide Kadma P.S. Case No. 196 of 2010, Kadma P.S. Case No. 197 of 2010, Kadma P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010, Kadma P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 and Kadma P.S. Case No. 40 of 2014 which would also establish that both parties were on inimical terms.
10. Now wherever a criminal Court is required to examine evidence tendered by an inimical witness, this must be remembered that such witnesses may be interested in prosecution of the accused and therefore the primary duty of the criminal Court is to find whether their evidence is laced with any motive. In "Masalti v. State of U.P." AIR 1965 SC 202, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be 4 very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses................ The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
11. Under section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of a person who testify that he believes another person to be unworthy of credit can be looked into by the Courts to test veracity of the testimony of the other person. Now several witnesses have admitted registration of criminal cases against other witnesses and, in fact, some of the witnesses themselves have admitted that they had been sent to judicial custody in connection to the criminal cases lodged by the accused party. There is no law of any universal application that evidence of a person with criminal antecedent must be rejected in toto, but then, having regard to the circumstances of the case which clearly disclose long standing enmity between the parties the worth of evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses would be corroded to a large extent.
12. This is also appearing from the materials on record that around the same time on 14th March 2010 some of the witnesses including Babloo Sonker and Anand Sonker entered the house of Chhotu Singh and tried to outrage modesty of his wife. This provides another reason why this Court should not interfere in this acquittal appeal.
13. This is also a well-settled proposition in law that the Courts are required to examine and extend the benefits of general exceptions even in cases where no plea of self-defence has been set up by the accused [refer, "Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab" (2010) 2 SCC 333]. Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. Sub-section 2 to section 100 provides that the right to private defence of person extends to causing harm to the body of himself and another person. Now in the context of clause thirdly to section 100, the accused persons had a right to cause such injury to the attacking party which does not exceed 5 restrictions under section 99. The allegations in Kadma P.S. Case No.27 of 2010 provided a firm foundation to the accused to probabilize their defence that they have been falsely implicated to the case.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 32 of 2020 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/Pankaj