The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on witness testimonies, consideration of defense evidence, and rejection of the plea of false implication in upholding the conviction under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.

3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 121/2006 whereby the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, but modified and reduced the sentences of the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal with modification in the sentences.

4. The said criminal appeal was preferred against the judgement and order of conviction dated 13.07.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 345/2001 (T.R. No. 204/2006) by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and the alleged date of occurrence is 25.08.2001 at 10 pm at night. The learned counsel submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidences of witnesses. PW – 4 has stated that she had given her statement before police on Saturday, although the FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2001, which was a Sunday. He submitted that there are material contradictions in connection with the place of occurrence also and I.O. having not been examined in the present case, the place of occurrence has not been proved. He also submitted that there is delay of 14 hours in giving written complaint to the police and the delay has not been explained.

6. He further submitted that there were altogether eight witnesses as per charge-sheet and only four prosecution witnesses, who are closely related to each other, have been examined. Withholding of remaining four charge-sheeted witnesses, including the investigating officer of the case, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel also submitted that the reason for false implication of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a witness in a case filed in the year 1997, in which the informant party was accused and on the date of the alleged occurrence in the present case, the trial of the said case was going on. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that it has not come in evidence as to what was the date on which the petitioner was to be examined or was examined in the case, in which he was a witness and informant party was accused.

8. The learned counsel finally submitted that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2001 and accordingly, more than 20 years have elapsed. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and at the relevant point of time, when the occurrence had taken place, the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 354 of IPC was two years and no minimum sentence as such was prescribed. The petitioner has also been convicted under Section 448 of IPC, but sentence of six months has been imposed under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of three months has been imposed under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the defence documents have been produced i.e. Exhibit-A and Exhibit- B, but the same were not properly considered by the learned courts below and non-consideration of the same makes the impugned judge