Madan Prasad Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

1. The present Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge II, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2011/32 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda has been pleased to partly allow the appeal with modification in awarded sentences by releasing the petitioner after due admonition and uphold the judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda by which the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for three months for committing offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian penal Code with further direction to run the sentences concurrently.

¶11

2. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision petition is that a complaint petition was filed by the complainant-Kailu Hembrom, alleging therein that on 22.12.1998, at about 10:00 am , at village

¶12

2 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016

¶13

Karmu, P.S. Mahgama, District Godda, the land pertaining to plot No. 450, Mouza Karmu, J.B. No. 40, area 04 Kathas, recorded in last gantzer survey settlement Parcha, is in the name of one Lakhan Hemvbrom, Ramjeet Hembram, Sukul Hembrom and others. Due to some family arrangement, the said land came into cultivation and possession of Kailu Hembram, grandfather of the complainant. After his death, the said land came under the possession of father of the complainant-Yogendra Hembrom. Thereafter, it came into cultivating possession of the complainant, who had been cultivating the said land. The complainant also planted wheat crop in the aforesaid land the said wheat plant grown up. It has been alleged that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons armed with lathi, Bhala, Farsa came there, forming unlawful assembly, and trespass in the aforesaid land and started uprooting the plant of wheat.

¶14

3. It has further been alleged that the complainant, who was standing near the land, protested them and thereafter, altercation took place. On hearing Halla, the witnesses and villagers came there and they intervened in the matter, but the accused persons did not pay any heed and they started assaulting the complainant with slaps and fists. It has further been alleged that the accused persons uprooted all wheat plants and thereby causing loss to the complainant of Rs. 1,000/-. It has further been alleged that accused Ambika and Ramadhar Bhagat took away goats of the complainant, which were worth Rs. 1500/- and tied in a Khutta near the land. On the basis of enquiry evidence of complainant, the charge for the offence punishable u/s 323, 427, 379, 417, 148, 447

¶15

3 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016

¶16

I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. has been framed which has been read over and explained to accused persons for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for the trial. The complainant has examined 5 witnesses altogether inorder to prove and substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons. They are Nobel Baski P.W. 1, Ganga Dayal Mandal P.W. 2, Hopna Marandi P.W. 3, Kailu Hembram P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 Chaitanya Pd. Sah.

¶17

4. On the other hand, the defence has examined four witnesses in his defence. They are Ramratan Rajjak (D.W. 1), Ramesh Pd. P.W. 2, Shiv Pujan Bhagat D.W. 3 and Tarkeshwar Mandal D.W. 4. Apart the role evidence of aforesaid defence witnesses has filed two documents which are exhibited as ext. A. and B. Exhibit A is certified copy of extract Khatian of Karun Mouza and ext. B is paper of exchange.

¶18

5. The petitioner along with other nine co-accused persons held guilty for the offences under Section 147, 323, 427 & 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 147, 323, 427 IPC and three months SI for offence under Section 447 IPC. Out of 10 accused persons only two, namely, Madan Prasad Bhagat present petitioner and Kailu Hembram have filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was dismissed on merits but with modification in sentence and appellant/petitioner extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released after due admonition.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record

¶20

4 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016

¶21

and ignored the materials contradiction appearing in the evidence of witnesses .

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was no specific overt act leveled against the petitioner but he has been dragged in this case on the principle of mob violence. He has no concern with the alleged occurrence and no specific allegation of assault or any other offences has been alleged to be committed by him.

¶23

8. Learned APP appearing for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both the trial court and first appellate court have tested the evidence available on record and there is concurrent finding proving the guilt of the petitioner. However, he was released after due admonition. It is further submitted that in case of attack by mob at least in this case, 10 accused persons were forming unlawful assembly encroached upon the land of the complainant and in furtherance of the common object assaulted the informant party. Therefore, it is not possible for the prosecution to pressurizely point out the specific allegation against each and every accused person. There is sufficient evidence on record that present petitioner was also member of the unlawful assembly and was present and participated in the alleged occurrence. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶24

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record along with impugned judgments and consider the factual matrix giving rise to this revision.

¶25

5 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016

¶26

10. However, so far the scope of interference, though criminal revision against the conviction is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in center of its decision has held that the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 , has held paras 10 & 11 as under:

¶27

“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it

¶28

is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 11. This Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015] , while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under : (SCC pp. 333-34) “9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of

¶29

6 Criminal Revision No.870 of 2016

¶30

reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.

¶31

This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. ‘9. … The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.’ (Vide Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad [Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136] , SCC p. 139, para 9)”

¶32

11. Since, the petitioner has not raised any pure question of law or mixed

¶33

question of law and facts which are exceptional in nature required to be entered into merit of this case by appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial court. Therefore, this court is restraining itself to disturb the finding of the conviction by both the courts below.

¶34

12. So far order of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already been released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offender Act, as such no interference in the impugned judgment is required.

¶35

13. Thus, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶36

14. Let the copy of this order along with L.C.R. be sent to court below.

¶37

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶38

R.K/

Madan Prasad Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Prasad Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sekh Nooruddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bablu Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Mahato Vs Mani Ram Mahato

Ashish Dutta and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Paro Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mustafa Alias MD Mortuza Alias MD Murtuza Vs the State of Jharkhand