Rambha Devi And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in

Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was

affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

The criminal appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. No. 182 of 2004 / Tr. Case No. 236 of 2011 (arising out of Sarwan P.S. Case No. 33/2004) whereby and whereunder the

petitioners were held guilty and convicted under Sections 323, 341, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. They were granted the benefit of Section 4

of the Probation of Offenders Act and were directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount

each for a period of one year and to receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good

behaviour.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse, inasmuch as, they

have not discussed the evidences properly. He further submitted that offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as there is

no question of house trespass in view of the fact that the parties are residing in the same house. He also submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are

the aunts of the informant (P.W.-4) and as per the prosecution case, the occurrence had taken place within the family. The allegation is that the

Petitioner No.2 had wrestled P.W.-4, the informant, on the ground. He submitted that although it is alleged that blood was oozing out, but the injury

report has not been exhibited and the doctor as well as the investigating officer of this case have not been examined. P.W.- 2 and P.W.-3 are

respectively the father and mother of the informant and are interested witnesses and so far as P.W.-1 is concerned, he is the grandfather of the

informant who has not supported the prosecution case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that otherwise also after a long gap, there is no occasion to furnish bond under Section 4 of

the Probation of Offenders Act and he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in (2012) 4 Eastern Indian

Criminal Cases 48 (Patna).

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that the arguments of the petitioners that no offence

under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as the informant-party as well as the petitioners are living in the same house, is not correct.

He referred to Para-13 of the appellate court's judgment and submitted that it has come in evidence that it is an admitted position that both the parties

are the descendants of the same ancestor but they are living separately, although their courtyard and well is common. The learned A.P.P. further

submitted that merely because they have the same courtyard and well, it does not mean that they are living in the same house.

The learned A.P.P. further submitted that so far as the non-examination of the Doctor and non-production of the injury report are concerned,

merely because the Doctor has not been examined and injury report has not been exhibited, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 323 of the

Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. He also submitted that the appellate court has already considered this argument of the

petitioners and has held that the version of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are consistent on the point that they saw blood and injury of the informant (P.W.-4),

who had pointed out his own injury. He further submitted that the learned appellate court has also considered the fact that although the investigating

officer of the case has not been examined in this case, but non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution case and has not caused any

prejudice to the petitioners. He also submitted that the learned courts below have given consistent findings of fact after analyzing the evidences on

record. He has submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the materials on record have not been considered properly,

is not correct.

The learned A.P.P. further submitted that merely because several years have passed from the direction to execute bond, the same cannot be a

ground for exempting the petitioners from executing the bond as directed by the learned trial court. He submitted that this plea of the petitioners has

also been considered and rejected by the learned appellate court. He further submitted that considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the

impugned judgments do not call for any interference.

Arguments concluded.

Post this case on 09.12.2020 for judgment.