Allowed¶26

Md.Tazuddin Tazuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2024Cr.Rev./742/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. Revision No. 742 of 2010, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Justice Ambuj Nath, pronounced 12.01.2024 (C.A.V. 05.01.2024). Section 354 IPC; outrage of modesty; attempt to ravish; sole testimony of complainant; enmity and land dispute between parties; inordinate unexplained delay of eight months in lodging complaint; benefit of doubt; acquittal; setting aside concurrent conviction and sentence of six months RI; P.C.R. Case No. 266 of 2005; Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2009; Godda; Amicus Curiae remuneration Rs.5,000/- JHALSA.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision application allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court set aside; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶26

Md.Tazuddin Tazuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cr. Revision No.742 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 742 of 2010

¶4

Md. Tazuddin @ Tazuddin Ansari … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Gulshan Biwi ... … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : M/s. R. K. Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s. S. K. Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate

¶12

C.A.V. on 05.01.2024 Pronounced on 12.01.2024

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 15.07.2010, passed by Sri Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Godda (As his lordship was then) in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2009, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Godda dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2009 passed by Sri R. B. Pal, learned S.D.J.M., Godda, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 266 of 2005 and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence.

¶15

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi, alleging there in that on 13.08.2004, she was sleeping alone in her house when the petitioner Md. Tazuddin @ Tazuddin Ansari came there and caught hold of her and when she tried to raise alarm, he gagged her mouth and attempted to ravish her.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the opposite party no. 2 has adduced oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record both the learned trial court as well as the learned

¶17

Cr. Revision No.742 of 2010 2

¶18

appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶19

The opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi has been examined as CW2. She has stated that there was dispute between her and the accused persons since last four years, the accused person has assaulted her. She has stated that at about 04:00 A.M., she was sleeping in her house when the petitioner came there and ravished her. He had gagged her mouth. He was there for 5-6 minutes and thereafter he fled away. Thereafter, she raised alarm on which witnesses came there. She has been cross-examined at length, in her cross examination she has stated that her husband works in Mumbai. She has further stated that the petitioner is a married person. She has admitted that there was land dispute between the petitioner and her mother-in-law.

¶20

Bibi Sugiya C.W.1 has stated that on the morning of date of occurrence, the opposite party No. 2 Gulshan Biwi told her that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. It is alleged that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

¶21

From the perusal of the statement of the opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi. It is apparent that she has not stated the date of occurrence. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from the complaint petition, it transpires that occurrence took place on 13.08.2004 and the present case was instituted on 23.04.2005 and in order to explain the delay, the occurrence has been shown to be continuous in nature. It was submitted that enmity between the family members of the opposite party no. 2, and the family members of the petitioner is admitted.

¶22

The statement of the opposite party no. 2 Gulshan Biwi that the petitioner had entered her house and outraged her modesty does not inspire much confidence in the background of the relationship between the parties. There is inordinate unexplained delay of eight months in lodging of the complaint case.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid fact; I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

¶24

Cr. Revision No.742 of 2010

¶25

¶26

This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and so affirmed by the learned appellate court is set aside.

¶27

Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of appreciation for M/s. Abhilash Kumar who has very ably assisted this court during the hearing of this revision application.

¶28

Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to him as remuneration for his services rendered as Amicus Curiae

¶29

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

Saurabh Uploaded

Md.Tazuddin Tazuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Tazuddin Tazuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalicharan Manjhi Alias Mahendra Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lankesh Kumar Singh Alias Lankesh Kr Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yogendra Singh Alias Don Alias Don Chacha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited through Sri Shivendra Nath Verma Vs Ministry of Coal

Nandalal Sah Vs Union of Indian through Narcotics Control Bureau Ncb

Raj Ram Alias Raja Ram Alias Raj Verma Alias Bajrangi Vs the State of Jharkhand