Allowed

Umesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2017Cr.Rev./65/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision proceedings, the High Court examined the conviction of two petitioners for assault and outrage of modesty. Upholding the conviction due to corroborated eyewitness evidence, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and conviction are affirmed; the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

Umesh Sahu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

Cr. Revision No. 65 of 2002

¶2

In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶3

Umesh Sahu

¶4

Raju Sahu

¶5

Both are sons of Harihar Pd. Sahu, R/o Reladih, P.S.Bundu, District- Ranchi. ... … Petitioners

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioners : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2., A.P.P.

¶7

Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

By Court: Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2., learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2002 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Cr. Appeal no. 53 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the judgment and conviction dated 23.02.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Khunti in G.R. No. 474 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 217 of 2001 has been affirmed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners have been modified.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that save and except the evidence of the informant P.W.5 there is no other eye witness with respect to the alleged out raging of her modesty. It has also stated that so far as the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are concerned the same cannot be believed in absence of examination of Md. Sahid who was also alleged to have witnessed the second part of the occurrence. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the period of sentence be suitably modified.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made

¶12

by the petitioners.

¶13

-2-

¶14

It appears that the First Information Report was instituted by the victim Monika Kumari (P.W.5) who had stated that she was alone in the Government Quarter as her cousin brother had gone to take bath. It is alleged that on finding the victim alone the petitioner no. 1 had surreptitiously entered into her house and had caught her hand with an ill intention and when the victim cried he had fled away. Further allegation has been levelled that when the cousin returned he was informed and the victim along with her cousin went to the house of the petitioner no. 1 where both the petitioners had assaulted her as well as her cousin brother causing bleeding injury on her neck. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after conclusion of the trial the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323, 354 & 448 of the Indian Penal Code and were variously sentenced for the said offences. Petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2001 which however was dismissed on 24.01.2002 with modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioners.

¶15

It appears that the victim Monika Kumari (P.W.5) is the sole eye witness to the first occurrence. The first occurrence is with respect to the allegation made against the petitioner no. 1 of entering into the house of the informant and trying to catch hold of her hand. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the first occurrence but the evidence of Monika Kumari (P.W.5) does inspire confidence and this fact has been considered by the learned court below that at the time of the incident no one was present nearby. In fact the incident has further been substantiated by the evidence of Vijay Kumar Dutta @ Pinto (P.W.3) who is the cousin brother of the informant and who had rushed to the place of occurrence and was disclosed about the fact by P.W.5 and when both of them gone to the house of the petitioner no. 1 both the petitioners have assaulted them causing injury. Rakesh Ranjan (P.W.2) is the own brother of the victim who has also stated about the disclosures made by the victim to him. Thus the incident which had taken place has sufficiently been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The Doctor who has been examined as P.W.1 has

¶16

-3-

¶17

supported the fact that the victim had an injury on the nose which further corroborates the prosecution case. Such circumstances therefore disentitles the petitioners to interference in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶18

However, so far as the sentence awarded to the petitioners are concerned it appears that the petitioners have remained for some time in custody out of a maximum sentence of two months Simple Imprisonment. The petitioners are also facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1999. Considering such circumstances the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone.

¶19

This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in sentence.

¶20

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 13^th day of February, 2017 Alok/NAFR

Umesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israil Ansari Vs State of Bihar

Beni Beni Mukhi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Laxman Ganjhu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Bharti And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anirudh Alias Aniruddha Chakraborty Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Keshari Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Israil Ansari Vs State of Bihar

Beni  Beni Mukhi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Laxman Ganjhu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Bharti And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anirudh Alias Aniruddha Chakraborty Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Keshari Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Beni Beni Mukhi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.