1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1075 of 2004

1. BalramYadav

2. Ghuran @ Ghutaran Yadav

3. Ishwari Yadav

4. Shyam Bihari Yadav

5. Raghunandan Yadav @ Raghunandan Pd. Yadav

6. Awdesh Yadav

7. Jagdish Yadav

8. Arjun Mahto

….. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

….. Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kr. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP

--------

06/ 17.06.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 31.08.2004, passed by learned 1^st

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, whereby the

Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2003, preferred by the petitioners has

been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 28.05.2003, passed in S.T. No. 187 of 1991, by the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, whereby the

petitioners were convicted under Section 143 and 307 read with

Sections 149 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 143

IPC, RI for three years under Section 307 IPC read with 149 IPC

and two years RI under Section 353 IPC and it was ordered that all

the sentences shall run concurrently, has been affirmed.

3.

The prosecution case is based upon the written report

2

dated 30.01.1991 of the informant Nuna Ram Manjhi for which

Manika P.S. Case No.13 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. No.43/91

has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 307,

353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act

against the petitioners. After investigation, the chargesheet was

submitted against the petitioners and thereafter, cognizance has

been taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Latehar and charges were

framed against the petitioners for which petitioners pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were

convicted under Section 143 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 and

353 of the Indian Penal Code which was also confirmed by the

appellate court in the appeal filed by the petitioners.

4.

Mr. Anil Kumar Kashyap, learned senior counsel

submits that this is a peculiar case where the charge has been

proved under Section 307 IPC, however, none of the person has

been injured in this case nor any intention has been proved by

prosecution. As per the prosecution case, when the informant along

with other team mates of the raiding party were returning from

village Vishunpur along with seized articles namely biscuits of

katha etc. along with the accused persons, who were also in their

custody after arrest; they found the road near Manuwagarah was

held up by the trunk of tree and boulders and all of a sudden about

100 unknown persons fired against this police party.

This allegation itself falsifies the charge under Section

3

307 of the IPC against these petitioners, inasmuch as, when the

accused persons were in custody of the informant party then there

was no question of firing from these accused persons. Admittedly,

the Katha were alleged to be found from the accused persons for

which a separate case under Section 33 of Forest Act was being

lodged against them. This case is only filed for criminal offence of

using arms etc.

He further submits that so far as charge under Section 27

of Arms Act is concerned this was against Balram Yadav and

Mahesh Mahto and Balram Yadav was acquitted by the trial court

and Mahesh Mahto has died during trial.

Learned senior counsel further submits that though the

petitioner No.1-Balram Yadav and Mahesh Mahto was charged

under the said section however he died during trial and petitioner

No.1-Balram Yadav was acquitted under the Arms Act and all the

petitioners were acquitted under Section