Dismissed

Ramanuj Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2019Cr.Rev./938/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand dismissed this criminal revision petition against a conviction for simple hurt under Section 323 IPC. The court rejected the argument that failure to produce medical evidence or examine the doctor warranted acquittal under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, holding that conviction based on trustworthy eyewitness testimony was sustainable and no interference was called for.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioners directed to deposit fine within three months; lower court record sent back.

Ramanuj Sharma And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Cr. Rev. No.938 of 2005

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶4

Cr. Rev. No. 938 of 2005

¶5

(Against the judgment dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Criminal Appeal no.25 of 2004)

¶6

Ramanuj Sharma son of Late Ayodhya Sharma

¶7

Pankaj Sharma @ Pankaj Kumar son of Ramanuj Sharma

¶8

Niraj Sharma @ Niraj Kumar Sharma son of Ramanuj Sharma

¶9

Bijay Narayan Sharma son of Late Rameshwar Sharma

¶10

Purnandu Sharma son of Bijay Narayan Sharma

¶11

Jhuma Sharma son of Bijay Narayan Sharma

¶12

All resident of village Chainpur, P.S. Chanpur, District-Gumla

¶13

..... Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand

¶16

Ranjeet Ranjan son of Kapildeo Prasad, village near Kamla Medical Clinic, P.S. Chainpur, District-Gumla, permanently residing at village Chhatihar, P.S. Hasuwa District-Nawada ….. Opp. Parties

¶17

P R E S E N T

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶19

For the Petitioners For the State	….. : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate : Addl. P.P.
For Opp. Party No.2	: Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate …..

¶20

By the Court:-

¶21

Heard the parties.

¶22

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Criminal Appeal no.25 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, learned appellate court below has set aside the conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 427 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code but confirmed their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but modified the sentence to fine amount of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

¶23

¶24

Cr. Rev. No.938 of 2005

¶25

The brief facts of the case as is relevant to this revision is that on 27.10.1996 the complainant was assaulted by the revision petitioners Pankaj Sharma and Purnandu Sharma and on 17.11.1996 while he was returning to his home after performing Chhat Puja all the revision petitioners surrounded him and assaulted him.

¶26

In support of its case, the complainant examined four witnesses. Out of the four witnesses, P.W.1- Bullu Ram has stated that he heard about the case but he has no knowledge about the case.

¶27

P.W.2- Michael Tigga has stated that the occurrence took place on 27.10.1996 and the complainant told him about the event of assault upon him. 6. P.W.3-Dheeraj Ram Lohra has deposed that he has no knowledge about the case.

¶28

P.W.4-Ranjeet Ranjan who is the complainant, has deposed that on 27.10.1996 Neeraj, Pankaj and Purnandu beat him and on 17.11.1996 on the eve of Chhat Puja while he was returning to his home, the revision petitioners Ramanuj Sharma, Pankaj, Niraj, Bijay, Purnendu and Jhuma Sharma beat him with fist and kicks.

¶29

On behalf of the defence one witness was examined by the revision petitioners namely Ram Gulam Singh and he has stated that the revision petitioner-Ramanuj Sharma was a teacher and the father of the complainant approached him to enhance the marks on Sanskrit and he denied the same, which was the reason for the dispute between the parties.

¶30

Both the trial court and the appellate court believed the sole testimony of the complainant so far his deposition to the effect that he was assaulted by the revision petitioners and the trial court convicted them inter alia for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellate court upheld the same.

¶31

¶32

Cr. Rev. No.938 of 2005

¶33

Mr. Mohit Prakash the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that though the P.W.4 has deposed that he was examined in the Government Hospital but he has not proved the medical examination report nor he examined the doctor and he has not examined his father as a witness nor he has examined the persons who came to his rescue hence, the appellate court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the complainant for having not examined these witnesses as envisaged under section 114 Illustration(g) of the Evidence Act and also the learned appellate court ought to have disbelieved the testimony of the P.W.4 and ought to have acquitted the revision petitioners.

¶34

Learned Addl. P.P. as well as Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that since both the courts below have believed the testimony of sole witness being the complainant and he having stated categorically about being assaulted by the revision petitioners which constitute the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code hence, the learned appellate court has rightly upheld the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this revision being without any merit be dismissed.

¶35

Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that adverse inference as envisaged under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, cannot be drawn on account of failure of a party to obtain certain evidence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph -9 in the case of Srichand K. Khetwani v. The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1967 SC 450 which reads as under:

¶36

“9 . Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not merely on account of its failure to obtain

¶37

¶38

Cr. Rev. No.938 of 2005

¶39

certain evidence. When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be said what that evidence would have been and, therefore, no question of presuming that that evidence would have been against the prosecution, under S. 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, can arise.”

¶40

It is also a settled principle of law that presumption, under Section 114 Evidence Act, it has to be remembered, is always optional and one of fact depending upon the whole set of facts. It is not obligatory as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain reported in AIR 1975 SC 2299

¶41

After going through the evidence, I find that the complainant who has been examined as P.W.4 has categorically stated about his being assaulted by the revision petitioners. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve or discard his testimony. The incident of assault on the complainant is not been specifically challenged in his cross examination. So far as the nonexamination of the doctor or non-production of the medical evidence is concerned in a case of simple hurt medical certificate is certainly not a sine qua non. Medical evidence as such is not substantive evidence. It is corroborative evidence. In this case as the complainant has succeeded in establishing by his trustworthy testimony that he was assaulted which have been believed by both the courts below and there is no illegality involved in such finding by the courts below hence non- production of the medical evidence or non-examination of some of the witnesses who could have been examined are certainly not the grounds warranting interference of this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The evidence in record is thus sufficient to establish that hurt was caused to the complainant by these revision petitioners. In view of the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case warranting interference with the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court.

¶42

¶43

Cr. Rev. No.938 of 2005

¶44

Accordingly, this criminal revision being without any merit is dismissed.

¶45

If the revision petitioners have not deposited the fine amount, they are directed to deposit the same within three months failing which the trial court will take appropriate steps as per law.

¶46

Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.

¶47

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶48

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 1^st March, 2019 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-

Ramanuj Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanuj Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitesh Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhu Narayan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pratima Raven Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hanif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basant Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Arif Alias MD Aarif Vs the State of Jharkhand