Bhukhlal Gorain vs State of Jharkhand

The Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1557 of 2003 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2003 and order of sentence dated

29.10.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 92 /1997 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 990

of 2006 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.05.2006, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 92 (A) /1997. Both the criminal appeals are arising outÂ

of same evidence in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 142 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 909/93 and after recording theÂ

statement of the appellant Parwati Charan Mahato under Section 313 Cr.P.C. said Parwati Charan Mahto has absconded and thus

the case of Parwati Charan Mahto is separated vide S.T. No. 92 (A) / 1997, as such S.T. No. 92 of 1997 was disposed ofÂ

with respect to Bhukhlal Gorain passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IIIrd, Bokaro vide judgment

of conviction dated 28.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 29.10.2003. Subsequently, Parwati Charan Mahato’s case vide Sessions Trial No. 92

(A)/97 has been decided vide judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, FTC-III, Bokaro. Since both the criminal appeals are arising out of the same evidence, both are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Heard, Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1557 of 2003 and

Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 990 of 2006, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.Â

The prosecution case is based upon written report submitted by one Ramchandra Prasad Singh, Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chas,

Bokaro before the Officer-in-Charge, Chas Police Station. The informant has alleged that while discharging his official duty in his official chamber

situated at I.T.I. More, the accused Bhukhlal Gorain, who was then the Sarpanch of Algora Panchayat, came to his office accompanied by some

persons and made some altercation and in course of altercation other coaccused Parwati Charan Mahato, came there and made altercation. It is

alleged that accused Bhukhlal Gorain has abused the informant, upon which the informant asked them not to do so, but they did not stopped. It is

further alleged that Parwati Charan Mahato was very much agitated and took out chhura and tried to hit the informant but was stopped by the office

staffs, who were present there. Bhukhlal Gorain was shouting loudly and was abusing the informant, when one Radheshyam Prasad, driver and Laxmi

Prasad Vipan, clerk came and rescued the informant and save the informant from both the miscreants.Â

On the basis of written report, F.I.R. was instituted vide Chas P.S. Case No. 142 of 1993 dated 12.08.1993 under Sections 448, 307, 353, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and after investigation the police submitted chargesheet vide no. 86 of 1993 dated 27.8.1993 under Section 448, 307, 353 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons.Â

Cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 08.09.1993 and case has been committed to the court of sessions on 10.07.1997 where

charge has been framed against both the appellants under Section 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Parwati Charan Mahato has been

separately charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants pleaded their innocence and thus they are put for trial.Â

That prosecution has examined altogether two witnesses. Ramchandra Prasad Singh (informant of the case) has been examined as P.W. 1 and

Radheshyam Prasad (driver) has been examined as P.W. 2. Apart from these two witnesses, the prosecution has proved the written report as Exhibit-

1.Â

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 26.06.2002. Thereafter, the

defence has also examined Jai Chand Mahato as D.W. 1 and Devi Lal Mahto as D.W. 2.Â

After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants Bhukhlal Gorain only under Section 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 353 and three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appellant Parwati Charan Mahato has been convicted under Section

353 of the Indian Penal Code and given the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The convict Parwati Charan Mahato was

directed to execute a bond of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties in like amount for maintaining good behavior for period of one year from his release as

passed by the learned Trial Court.Â

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. C.A. Bardhan has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law

and as such fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined in this

case and conviction against the appellant cannot sustain under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as no criminal force has been used to deter a

public servant from discharging his duties. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and as such both the appellants may be acquitted.

  Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant Bhukhlal Gorain, the sarpanch of the village, has only made complaint before the

informant for poor electric supply and just to falsely implicate the appellants, such allegations has been levelled and as such the conviction of the

appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.Â

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1557 of 2003 and Mr. Hardeo

Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 990 of 2006 have submitted that both the witnesses P.W. 1 (Ram Chandra Prasad

Singh) and P.W. 2 (Radheyshyam Prasad â€" driver) have supported the prosecution case and there is no contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1

and P.W. 2. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on material

available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel for the

State has further submitted that non-examination of the investigating officer is not prejudicial to the interest of the appellants.Â

   Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey,  Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that informant is admittedly a public

servant who was discharging his duty in his office when these two appellants came along with other co-villagers and abused the informant but later on

P.W. 2 and other persons have saved the informant and as such their evidence is consistent to each other.

Heard, Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1557 of 2003 and Mr. Hardeo

Prasad Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 990 of 2006, Additional Public Prosecutors, perused the entire record, F.I.R., charge, evidence of two witnesses

Ramchandra Prasad Singh (P.W. 1) and Radheyshyam Prasad (P.W. 2), the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the

defence witnesses, Jai Chandra Mahto as D.W. 1 and Devi Lal Mahto as D.W. 2, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution is

consistent. P.W. 1 (informant) and P.W. 2 (driver of the vehicle) have supported the prosecution case and nothing has been elucidated by the defence

in their cross-examination. The non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal for the prosecution case unless and until the appellant show that

how non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to him. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to hold

the appellants guilty.

Learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of conviction by convicting the appellant Bhukhlal Gorain under Section 353 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months under both head that is under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and

Parwati Charan Mahato has also been rightly convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, who has been given the benefit of Section 4 of

the

Probation of the Offenders Act by directing him to execute bond of Rs. 3000/- to maintain peace and tranquility in the society for a period of one year

from the date of release. As per the allegation, Parwati Charan Mahto has put a dagger upon the informant, as such considering the same to bring the

uniformity, the sentence awarded to the appellant Bhukhlal Gorain of rigorous imprisonment of three months each under Sections 353 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, is modified as period already undergone, as he has served a period of more than one and a half month.

Bhukhlal Gorain has already served a period of more than one and half month and Parwati Charan Mahto has executed the bond as directed by

the learned Trial Court, no further order is required in these appeals.   Â

Thus, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1557 of 2003 preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2003 and order of sentence dated

29.10.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 92 /1997 in connection with Chas P.S.

Case No. 142 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 909/93 is hereby dismissed with modification as stated above and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 990 of 2006

preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court 3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 92 (A) /1997 in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 142 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No.

909/93 is hereby dismissed.

In the result both criminal appeals are dismissed. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1557/2003 is dismissed with modification in sentence and Criminal

Appeal (SJ) No. 990/2006 is dismissed without any interference by this Court.

The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. Â

Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.Â