RAM BAHADUR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-37
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 12,2018

Ram Bahadur Pandey Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.
(2.)This application is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2007 passed by learned 10th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-3rd Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 553 of 2002 (T.R. No. 260 of 2007), arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 28 of 2002, convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed and the sentence of 6 month R.I. has been modified by giving the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. So far as the conviction made by the learned Judicial Magistrate with respect to Sections 341/448/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same was set aside by the learned appellate court.
(3.)It has been stated by Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been acquitted for the offence u/s 341/448/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the statement given by P.W. 6, which according to the learned appellate court was considered to be trustworthy. It has been stated that P.W. 6 has disclosed that there was an exchange of words between the informant and the petitioners and he had not alleged about any assault committed by the petitioners upon the informant and taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 6, the petitioners could not have been convicted for the offence u/s 323/34 I.P.C. It has further been submitted that the act of the petitioner even if it is assumed to be true then also it was not a voluntarily act to cause hurt to the informant. It has also been stated that the informant is the caretaker of the property in question and this fact had been initially suppressed. It has been further submitted that the house of the petitioners and the disputed land is nearby and there is prior civil litigation between the parties and therefore it has been opined by learned appellant court that the false implication could not be denied in view of the said dispute. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioners in the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled u/s 323/34 I.P.C.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.