IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 990 of 2012

Manoj Bhagar @ Manoj Bhagat, son of Late Jagdish Bhagat,

Resident of Village- Khesar, P.O. and P.S.- Belhar,

District- Banka (Bihar)

...

...

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Bishnudeo Bhagat, son of Late Mahadeo Bhagat,

resident of Birsanagar, 1-B, Loyola B.Ed. College Road,

Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Birsanagar, Town-

Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East … … Opp. Parties

With

Cr. Rev. No. 1064 of 2012

1. Tinku Bhagat @ Mitesh Kr. Bhagat

2. Amit Bhagat

Both sons of Manoj Bhagat

Residents of Village- Khesar, P.O. and P.S. Belhar,

District- Banka (Bihar)

...

... Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Bishnudeo Bhagat, son of Late Mahadeo Bhagat,

resident of Birsanagar, 1-B, Loyola B.Ed. College Road,

near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S.- Birsanagar, Town-

Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East … … Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners

: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate

Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate

---

Reserved on 02.09.2021

Pronounced on 02.12.2021

1.

Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar alongwith Mr. D.K. Karmakar,

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in

both the cases.

2.

Heard Ms. Alka Kumari, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 in both the cases.

3.

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned A.P.P.

appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

4.

Both criminal revision applications are directed against

the Judgment dated 24.09.2012 passed by the learned Addl.

2

Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal

Appeal No. 89/2011 whereby and whereunder the learned

appellate court has set aside the Judgment of acquittal dated

03.05.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C-1 Case No. 490 of 2007 / T.R. No.

909 of 2011 and convicted the petitioners under Section 384/34

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for one year and allowed the criminal

appeal preferred by the Complainant.

Arguments of the petitioners

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

learned trial court had acquitted all the petitioners by a well-

reasoned judgment, but by the impugned judgment, the

learned appellate court has set-aside the judgment of acquittal

and convicted all the petitioners under Section 384 /34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

6.

She further submitted that the place of occurrence was

within the wall of the premises of the house of the

Complainant. She submitted that the witnesses, who deposed

in favour of the Complainant, particularly C.W.-2, who is said

to be the neighbour of the Complainant and C.W.-4, who is a

labourer doing work in the house of the complainant appear to

be tutored witnesses. She submitted that the neighbour (C.W-2)

could not have seen the occurrence as the incident had taken

place within the premises, and so far as C.W.-4, the labourer is

concerned, he has disclosed the name of the accused persons,

but being a labourer, he could not have known the names of the

accused persons. He has also disclosed the name of the mother

of the Complainant. She submitted that this indicates that the

witnesses were tutored.

7.

Learned counsel submitted that the reasoning which has

been given by the learned trial court is certainly one of the

plausible reasons and once there was a judgment of acquittal,

3

learned appellate court should have been very cautious in

interfering with the judgment of acquittal as no perversity, as

such, reflects from the judgment passed by the learned trial

court, nor any perversity has been recorded by the learned

appellate court. Learned counsel submitted that the learned

appellate c