Jharkhand High Court
Wakil Chand Mahto & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 17 July, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2001
Against the judgment dated 22.08.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
29 of 2000 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih
---
1.Wakil Chand Mahto S/o Late Ram Tahal Mahto
R/o Isri Bazar, PS Nimiaghat, District Giridih
2.Ram Lal Saw, S/o Sri Mohan Saw, R/o Village Ranga
Mati, PS Nimiaghat, District Giridih ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Chetan Rajwar S/o LatePahla Rajwar R/o Village
Kathwara, PS Pirtand, District Giridih... ... Opposite Parties
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
17.07.2017Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2000 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.05.2000 passed in Nimiaghat P. S. Case No. 30 of 1996 corresponding to G. R. No. 606 of 1996 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Giridih by which the petitioner have been convicted for the offence under Section 341/34 of the I.P.C. has been affirmed and the sentence has been reduced from simple imprisonment for six months to releasing the petitioners under the provision of Probation of Offenders' Act.
3. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that the informant was on his duty as a Guard in Bihar Mines, Isri Bazar, Giridih. It is alleged that in the night of the occurrence, he saw the accused persons excavating the foundation for starting a new construction on the land of the employer of the informant. The informant had protested at which he was threatened and he was further tied to a chair. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Nimiaghat P. S. Case No. 30 of 1996 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed under Section 447, 341, 342/34 of I.P.C. The learned trial court vide judgment dated -2- 17.05.2000 convicted the petitioners for the offences under Section 341/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2000 in which vide judgment dated 22.08.2001, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih had upheld the judgment of conviction, but had reduced the sentence by releasing the petitioners on furnishing bonds.
4. In course of trial, 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 - Chotan Rajwar is the informant who has stated that he was on duty in the night when the incident had occurred. It has been stated that the place of occurrence is beside G. T. Road at Isri Bazar. This witness has further stated that the accused persons had started raising wall on his employer's land which was objected to by the informant and resultantly he was tied in a chair. P.W. 2 - Sheo Kumar Singh has stated that he along with P.W. 3 had gone near the place of occurrence to fix grill, but since no labour could be found, they were forced to spend the night there. He has further stated that on hearing sound, they went to the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence. P.W. 3 - Md. Mobin Ansari had accompanied P.W. 2 and he has stated on similar terms to what has been stated by the P.W. 2. P.W. 4 - Kamla Prasad has proved some rent receipts. P.W. 5 - Ram Chandra Prasad Yadav is the Investigating Officer who was on patrolling duty and who had reached the place of occurrence and had subsequently untied the informant.
5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners should not have been convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. as the incident itself is not believable in view of the statement of the witnesses. It has been stated that neither any chair nor the rope with which the informant was said to have been tied have been seized. He further submits that there are several discrepancies in the statement of P.W. 3 as to when he heard the sound which made him come to the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that P.W. 2 and 3 are interested and chance witnesses and their version is full of contradictions and not to be relied upon. He further submits that in fact P.W. 1 is set-up by his employer to lodge a false case against the petitioner. He further submits that the land was in possession of the petitioners and he was running a hotel -3- business as such, the petitioner could not be alleged to have trespassed on the land belonging to the employer of the informant.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer.
7. It appears that the version of P.W. 1, the informant with respect to he being tied on a chair on his protest against the construction of a wall in the land belonging to his employer has been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) who on reaching the place of occurrence had untied the informant. The chance witnesses P.W. 2 & 3 have also categorically stated about seeing the occurrence with their own eyes. Although some discrepancies have crept up in the evidence of P.W. 3, but the same by itself would not dilute the prosecution case as considering the totality of the circumstances brought forward by the evidences of P.W. Nos. 1, 2 & 5; it would be evident that on the protest having been made by the informant, he was tied to a chair with a rope by the petitioners. Subsequently, he was released from their clutches by the police patrolling party.
8. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution is a clear, consistent and categorical with respect to the incident involving the petitioners. Such circumstances therefore had rightly been considered by the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. which has subsequently been affirmed in appeal. This court is thus not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction so passed.
9. As regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned appellate court had directed the petitioners to be released after furnishing bonds for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of 2 years and the sentence thus awarded to the petitioners is quite lenient which does not require any interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 17th day of July, 2017 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3