Advocates:
['SHEO KUMAR SINGH', 'APP', '', 'PURNIMA SHARMA', 'MD FARUQUE ANSARI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2016

Quddus Painter, s/o late Rabbani, r/o Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S.

Medninagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau, Jharkhand

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Bablu, s/o Mokhtar Ahmad

3. Mokhtar Ahmad, s/o late Sobrati Miya

4. Julekha Bibi, w/o Mokhtar Ahmad

5. Soni @ Sawana Praveen, w/o Md. Anwar

6. Moni @ Sabnam Praveen, d/o Mokhtar Ahmad

Respondent 2 to 6 are r/o Mohala Kunjrapati, Nawatoli, P.O. &

P.S. Medninagar (Daltonganj), District- Palamau, Jharkhand

… Opposite Parties

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP

For OP Nos. 2 to 6

: Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate

-------

Order No.05/Dated: 18

^th October, 2021

Complaint Case No. 460 of 2003 was instituted by

Quddus Painter on an allegation that Bablu, Mokhtar Ahmad,

Julekha Bibi, Sawana Praveen @ Soni and Sabnam Praveen

@ Moni forced entered his house on 11^th July, 2003 at about

01:00 pm and committed marpeet with the members of his family

and before leaving they took away cash and jewelleries from his

house.

2.

In Tr. No. 2396 of 2012 which was started on the basis

of Complaint Case No. 460 of 2003, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj held that the offences under

sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were not proved,

however, the accused persons were liable to be convicted under

sections 323 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial

Judge has further held that Mokhtar Ahmad and Julekha Bibi

were guilty also under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The convicts namely, Bablu, Mokhtar Ahmad, Julekha

2 Cr. Revision No.90 of 2016

Bibi, Sawana Praveen @ Soni and Sabnam Praveen @ Moni were

sentenced to SI for six months under section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code and SI for one year under section 451 of the Indian

Penal Code – Mokhtar Ahmad and Julekha Bibi were further

convicted and sentenced to SI for three years under section 380 of

the Indian Penal Code.

4.

In Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2012, the appellate Court

held that the charges against the accused were not proved and

therefore they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

5.

The learned appellate Court has held as under:

“10. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed

the defence version stating that on the basis of materials

available on record the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

has rightly passed the judgment and conviction and which

does not require any interference. The learned counsel for

the complainant has also filed original bond paper dated

10.08.2000 between Quddus Ansari and Mokhtar Ansari

and photo copy of judgment of Anjuman as per list of

document and also relied upon the rulings as per list of

documents i.e. photo copy of judgment of Criminal Appeal

No. 37/03 reported in 2011 (1) AIR Jhar R 79, on the point

of: Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 324/148, 323/147 –

Assault – Proof – Appellants allegedly caused injuries to

informant by iron rod – Main evidence is of informant, who

was supported by all chance witnesses – Other witnesses

are his relatives, who come to place of occurrence on his

hulla being made – Neither medical report is proved nor

any doctor has been examined to show as to what type of

injury was received by informant – And whether injuries

were caused by iron rod or by something else – Conviction

of appellant u/Ss. 324/148 therefore altered to one under

Section 323/147. (Para 9). And photo copy of ruling i.e.

1985 Ecr. C (Pat.) 567 on the point of: (A) Criminal trial –

Injury report – Not proved by producing doctor who

examined the injuries – Effect – Such a report cannot be

admitted into evidence.

12. Thus on the basis of foregoing discussion and

consideration of evidence and facts of the case, I m