Dismissed

Radhe Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2018Cr.M.P./380/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for leave to appeal seeking challenge against an order acquitting accused of offenses under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. The court found that the acquittal did not suffer from any infirmity and held the petition to be devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed; the order of acquittal was left unchanged.

Radhe Krishna Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 380 of 2017

¶2

Radhe Krishna Prasad ….........Petitioner

¶3

Vrs.

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

2.Ranvir Kumar

¶6

3.Aditya Nath Singh ….......... Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.

¶8

06/12.02.2018 There is a delay of 7 days in preferring instant petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2016 rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P.Case No. 1100 of 2007 (T.R. No. 1164 of 2016). Both the accused / opposite party no. 2 and 3 herein have been acquitted of the charges under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. for the State, we condone the delay of 7 days in preferring the instant petition. I.A. No. 1819 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay also stands disposed of.

¶10

The complaint petition was instituted by the Complainant/ Petitioner herein claiming himself to be the Central President of Bihar Sharmik Sangh with an allegation that on 27.06.2007 he had given notice to the B.C.C.L management and other offices relating to two days strike on 16.07.2007 and 17.07.2007 in view of certain orders of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Thereafter, he was invited to participate in the talk by the accused no.1, Regional Manager, Bhuli Nagar Township on 04.07.2007 at 4.30 p.m. in his office. When he went there, he saw accused no.2 A.N.Singh and 4-5 hooligans also sitting there. On the direction of accused no.1, Ranvir Kumar, accused no. 2 and others started abusing him, caught him and assaulted him by fists and started saying that he should be kidnapped and killed. On being dragged, he raised alarm on which witnesses and other staffs of the office arrived there. Then the accused no.1 took out Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the complainant and snatched gold chain. In the meanwhile, complainant's son went to the police station and informed about the occurrence and when the police reached there, the accused persons fled from the office. Thereafter, the complainant filed a written complaint regarding the occurrence in the police station but since no action was taken, complaint case was filed before learned C.J.M. After recording the statement of the complainant on S.A. and

¶11

-2-

¶12

those inquiry witnesses, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the substance of accusations were explained on 16.07.2013.

¶13

During course of trial, the complainant examined himself as C.W.1, his son Vinay Kumar Sinha (C.W.2) and Vinay Kumar Thakur (C.W.3). During his examination in chief, complainant stated that occurrence took place at 4.50 p.m. on 04.07.2007. On 27.06.2007 he had given a charter of demand to the C.M.D, BCCL and a copy was also given to the accused no.1. Accused no.1 had called him on the date of occurrence at 11 a.m. for talking in his chamber. When he reached there all alone at 4.30 p.m., he was abused and assaulted. His money as well as gold chain were snatched. They tried to kidnap him by Bolero or Sumo Vehicle in order to kill him. On raising alarm, his son informed the police. However, the accused fled away when the police came. He has proved his signatures on the complaint petition, which have been marked as Ext.1 series. In his cross examination, he had stated that he was earlier employed in the Sijua Area of BCCL and was dismissed in the year 1986 by the BCCL, which was subsequently withdrawn. He had not vacated the quarter of the BCCL. The BCCL had filed an eviction suit against him. He had also filed an appeal against the eviction order passed by the Estate Court, which has been dismissed. Despite the eviction order, he was still in occupation of that quarter. Prior to institution of this case, BCCL had declared him personna non grata and thereby prevented him from entering into any of the offices of the BCCL. He could file the dismissal withdrawal letter in the Court. The complainant, despite statement made in the S.A., did not file any receipt of the gold chain nor produced the cash book in support of his statement that he had withdrawn Rs.5000/-. He claimed to be treated by Dr. Rajendra Prasad of BCCL. However, he did not file any injury report nor made the doctor as witness in the case. He had denied the defence suggestion that the said case was filed in order to put pressure to provide employment to his men. He also denied the defence suggestion that he had forcibly entered the office of accused No.1regarding which a complaint was filed before the police and a proceeding had been initiated under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against him.

¶14

As per C.W.2, his son, at the time of occurrence he was on his way

¶15

-3-

¶16

from Shyam Nagar to his house. When he reached near BTA office, he saw a crowd there. He saw the accused persons were assaulting his father. They threatened to kidnap him. The police arrived at his information after which accused persons fled away. On the Court's query, he informed that there were 150-200 persons at the place of occurrence. Rs.5000/- and a gold chain belonging to his father had fallen somewhere. During his cross examination, he had stated that his father was dismissed from BCCL on the charge of misconduct. He had failed to produce any order of the Estate Officer regarding eviction of his father from the official quarter. The occurrence took place outside the BTA office.

¶17

C.W.3 claimed to be a chance witness as at the time of occurrence he was purchasing fish beside the BTA office. He went inside the office on hearing noise. He saw both accused persons were scuffling with the complainant. On information of C.W.2 police arrived and the accused persons fled away. Rs.5000/- and a gold chain of the complainant was snatched by someone, who he had not seen. During his cross examination, he stated that complainant was dealing with his case regarding his employment, therefore, he knew him. The complainant lived in the BCCL quarter. To the Court's question, he had stated that the occurrence took place in the verandah of BTA office.

¶18

The defence had examined only one witness Manoj Kumar Singh as D.W.1. In his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he was posted as Manager of Bhuli Township in the year 2007. At the time of occurrence he was in the meeting in the office of Area Manager, Ranvir Kumar. Accused no.2 A.N.Singh and others were also there. Complainant had arrived there and asked for the employment of his men on which there was hot discussion between both the parties. Accused No.1 told him that allotment of work would be made as per rule and tender. Nobody misbehaved with the complainant. He has proved the written complaint made by the accused no.1 in the police station which was marked as Ext.A. The police instituted a case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C against the complainant. He also stated that complainant was employed in BCCL and had been dismissed but had not vacated the quarter. In his cross examination, he stated that the complainant had given notice of strike in order to put pressure. However, he was not called for the talk.

¶19

-4-

¶20

Learned Trial Court considered the evidence of the parties and the submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant and the defence and came to a finding that complainant had not been successful in bringing home the charges against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Learned Trial Court was of the view that though there was a case and counter case between the parties with regard to the occurrence of the same date, but on careful examination of the complainant witnesses it transpired that they were very much inconsistent as well as had contradiction on material points like the time, place and manner of occurrence and therefore, not reliable. While the complainant alleged that he was called by the accused persons for talks in connection with the notice of two days strike, but during his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he had been called for talks regarding the charter of demand given to the C.M.D, BCCL. In the complaint petition he had alleged that accused no.2 and 3 and others started abusing and assaulting him when he reached the office of accused no.1 and the accused no.1 had snatched Rs.5000/- from his pocket and gold chain worth Rs.12000/- but during his examination-in-chief he stated that accused no.1 abused and assaulted him and snatched money and gold chain. He did not whisper about the presence of the accused no.2 and others at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. He had admitted that he was declared persona non grata by the BCCL, meaning thereby that he was not allowed to enter into the offices of the BCCL. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was beyond comprehension as to why the accused persons could have invited him for talks in their office. C.W.2 has been taken to be interested witness and his testimony was inconsistent with that of complainant as C.W.2 alleged that place of occurrence was outside the BTA office where as the complainant had alleged that the occurrence had taken place inside the chamber of the accused no.1. While C.W.2 stated his father's gold chain and Rs.5000/- had fallen somewhere, but the complainant alleged that the same was snatched by accused no.1. C.W.3 had also alleged about the place of occurrence as out side the BTA office contrary to the statement of the complainant who stated that the occurrence had taken place inside the office of accused no.1. In para 1 C.W.3 stated that at the time of occurrence he was purchasing fish beside the BTA office but in his earlier statement during inquiry he had stated that he had gone to the BTA office to show documents of his land to the accused

¶21

-5-

¶22

Ranvir Kumar. These inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of C.W.s are illustrative and not exhaustive. Learned Trial Court found that there was not a single witness of the locality or the staff of the office, who were admittedly present at the time of occurrence, who came forward to corroborate the complainant's version. This created doubt about its veracity. Neither the Doctor was examined nor the injury report has been brought on record. It is true that in a case under Section 323 of the IPC, proving of injury report is not of much significance but when it is asserted by the complainant that he was treated by a doctor then the examination of the doctor was desirable in order to corroborate his story. Nothing has been brought on record regarding the written complaint in the police station. There was delay of 2 days unexplained in institution of the complaint, which created an impression of concoction and embellishment in the prosecution version. In view of these discussion and the analysis of the material evidences on record, learned Trial Court had reason to acquit the accused persons of the charges under Section 324 and 341 of the I.P.C.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statement of these 3 C.W.s clearly showed instances of assault and illegal confinement, which were sufficient to bring home the charges for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel has also made reference to the order of the Trial Court by which it had dismissed the application for recall of the witness for his cross examination. However, when the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by learned C.J.M. in the instant case was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2016, learned Sessions Judge did not find any illegality in the same and dismissed the application by order dated 29.06.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the deposition of C.W.2. However, perusal thereof only confirms the findings of the learned Trial Court as despite the fact that more than 150-200 persons were said to be present at the time of occurrence, no one, apart from the complainant, his son and C.W.3 came forward to corroborate the complainant's version of the story.

¶24

Learned A.P.P. representing the State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that it is well reasoned after due analysis of the case of the parties.

¶25

We have given considerable thought to the submission of the parties in the light of material evidences on record and the discussion made herein

¶26

-6-

¶27

above. We are of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not appear to suffer from such infirmity, which entitles the petitioner to seek leave to appeal to assail it before the Appellate Court. In these circumstances, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶28

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶29

( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶30

A.Mohanty

Radhe Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhe Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanju Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sushil Kumar Mandal Vs the State Bank India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Manki Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

All India Prograssive Womens Association Aipwa Vs Don Bosko Tech Don Bosko Yuva Kendra and Otehrs

Bipin Bihari Vs the State of Jahrkhand and Another

Roshan Kumar Saw And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.