Allowed

Poresh Soren v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2019Cr.A(SJ)/798/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the conviction under Section 354 IPC due to violations of Section 277 Cr.P.C. regarding language of witness evidence and reliance on hearsay testimony. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and discharged the appellant, holding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered sitting as a coordinate

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2004 set aside; appellant discharged from liability of bail bonds.

Poresh Soren Vs State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 798 of 2004.

¶2

-----

¶3

( Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case no.03/2002)

¶4

----- Poresh Soren …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- For the Appellant : M/s . Kumari Rashmi & Kumari Priyambada, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha,A.P.P

¶5

-----

¶6

P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶7

By Court. The sole appellant has preferred this criminal appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case no.03/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted U/s 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and a find of Rs. 1000/-.

¶8

2. It appears that this appeal was filed o 13.05.2004 and on 06.0.2005 it was admitted for hearing, LCR was called for and during pendency of this appeal the provisional bail granted to the appellant by the trial court was confirmed.

¶9

3. After a period of 13 years, it was listed on 29.01.2018 before a coordinate Bench and thereafter on 09.10.2018 and 04.01.2019. On 18.06.2019 for the first time , this case was listed before this Bench.

¶10

4. Today when the case is called out , learned counsel for the appellant while referring the evidence of the informant ( P.W.3) on the Fardbeyan, which was recorded by I.O (P.W.4) has stated as per the statement of the victim while she was repairing her mud wall, her covillager Poresh Soren (appellant) came and hold her hands with evil intention and began to move his hand on her body to which she became angry and objected the same, then the appellant tried to lay her down forcibly and on hulla, his son and daughter rushed there and appellant fled sway. P.W.2 is the husband of the victim, who is a hearsay witness and P.W.1 is the mother-in-law of the victim, who is also a hearsay witness. It is submitted that there was land disputes between them.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this

¶12

court towards the provision of Section 277 Cr. P.C and submits that P.W.3 was not knowing Hindi and she gave her evidence in Santhali and with the help of translator it was translated in Hindi and the same was recorded, which was complete violation of the provision of Section 277 of the Cr.P.C. Section 277(b) Cr.P.C reads as under :

¶13

277(a) .. .. .. .. ..

¶14

(b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or Presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record.

¶15

6. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P has submitted that the infomant (P.W.3) has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶16

7. It appears that no translated version of the evidence of the victim was recorded by the trial court and the appellant was held guilty.

¶17

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also going through the evidence of the victim ( P.W.3) recorded by the I.O (P.W.4), I find that the prosecution has failed to proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶18

In the result, this appeal is allowed, accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2004 is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶19

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶20

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi The 11^th July, 2019 Raman/N.A.F.R.

Poresh Soren v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poresh Soren 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chotu Momin Chhote Momin Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Ishwar Vs the Superintendent of Police CBI Ranchi

Shaligram Mahto And Others Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjita Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santu Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhanush Dhari Prajapati 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

Chotu Momin  Chhote Momin Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Ishwar Vs the Superintendent of Police CBI Ranchi

Shaligram Mahto And Others Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjita Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santu Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhanush Dhari Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand

Chotu Momin Chhote Momin Vs State of Jharkhand