IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 866 of 2014

1. Baldeo Singh, son of Late Jagbandhu Singh

2. Basant Singh, son of Baldeo Singh … … ...

Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Jharkhand

…

… Opposite Party

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner s

: Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Amicus Curiae

For Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

J U D G M E N T

C.A.V. on 09.12.2020

Pronounced on 19.02.2021

1.

Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus Curiae

appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2.

Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing

on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3.

This criminal revision petition has been directed against

the Judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal

Appeal No. 50 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned

appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the

order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial

court and dismissed the appeal.

4.

The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against

the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated

26.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class,

Civil Courts, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 636 of 2004/ Trial No.

444 of 2009 (arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No. 60/2004 dated

30.08.2004) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were

convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34 of

the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 323

2

of the Indian Penal Code, for 15 days for the offence under

Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and for 03 Years for the

offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and all the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5.

The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the impugned judgements are perverse and

therefore, they call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

She submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgements,

it is apparent that there was land dispute between the parties

and it was the Petitioner No.1-Baldeo Singh who was claiming

the place of occurrence land. She further submitted that P.W.-1

has turned hostile and P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are interested

witnesses and there is no independent witness and no eye-

witness to the alleged occurrence. She also submitted that it was

mentioned in the fardbeyan that the petitioners were holding

lathi, but during evidence, it was stated that the petitioners

were holding spade, although neither any spade was produced

during trial, nor any sharp cutting injury was found on the

person of the Informant-victim as per the injury report

prepared by the doctor.

6.

The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the X-

Ray plate has been marked as an exhibit with objection and on

the basis of the same, it has been recorded that the victim had

suffered the fracture injury, but the concerned radiologist has

not been examined to prove the fracture injury and accordingly,

the finding of the learned courts below that the victim had

suffered fracture (grievous injury) is not sustainable in the eyes

of law.

7.

The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that

without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions and considering

the facts that the incident is of the year 2004 and the petitioners

have already remained in custody for a period of 01 month 25

3

days from 24.11.2009 to 17.01.2010 during trial and appeal and

for a period of 01 month 09 days from 04.02.2015 to at least till

12.03.2015 when this criminal revision was admitted and they

were directed to be released on bail i.e. at least for a total period

of 03 months 04 days and they do not have any c