Legally Bharat

Jharkhand High Court

Sukhdeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 22 August, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.4541 of 2022
                                          ------

1. Sukhdeo Singh, aged about 60 years.

2. Ram Prasad Singh @ Ram Singh, aged about 62 years.

Both petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are sons of late Murli Singh.

3. Ajay Singh, aged about 26 years.

4. Vikas Kr. Singh @ Vikas Singh, aged about 24 years.

Both petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are sons of Sukhdeo Singh (petitioner
No.1).

5. Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kr. Singh @ Sonu Singh, aged about 34
years, S/o Ram Singh (petitioner No.2)

6. Amresh Kr. Singh @ Amresh Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o
Jaiprakash Singh.

Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are resident of Village Gidhani, P.O. & P.S.
Jasidih, District Deoghar. Petitioner No.6 is resident of Village
Panro, P.O. & P.S. Sarath Madhupur, District Deoghar
… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

——

             For the Petitioners         : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
                                           Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate
             For the State               : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
                                                 ------
                                          PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-      Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Cr. Revision

No.73 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.325 of 2019 corresponding to Jasidih

1 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
P.S. Case No.280 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,

Deoghar whereby and where under the learned court below has dismissed the

Cr. Revision No.73 of 2022 and upheld the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar rejecting the prayer of the

petitioners for discharge in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.280 of 2018

corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 2019.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner being the

member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of the assembly

committed criminal trespass to the house of the informant, armed with the

dangerous and deadly weapons and caused sexual harassment and outraged

the modesty of the female members of the house of the informant. Police after

completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners

and consequent upon that the cognizance has been taken for the offences

punishable under Section 147, 323, 448, 307, 354(A), 379, 504 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed a petition to discharge the petitioners

from the case which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Deoghar vide order dated 12.04.2022.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Cr. Revision

No.73 of 2022 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar which was

ultimately heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,

Deoghar vide order dated 27.09.2022 as already indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the certified copy of the charge

framed by the learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar against the petitioners for having

committed the offences punishable under Section 147, 341, 323, 324, 426, 448,

2 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
354A, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.10.2023. Keep the same

in the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of self-same

occurrence, the petitioners first instituted Jasidih P.S. Case No.279 of 2018. It is

submitted that the offence punishable under Section 324, 326 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar by a cryptic and non-speaking

order without appreciation of the materials available in the record, has

dismissed the Criminal Revision. It is next submitted that the learned revisional

court has committed an error by observing that ingredients of the offence

punishable under Sections 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.

7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that though the charge

framed against the petitioners is not under challenge in this Cr.M.P. but

certainly, the learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar has erroneously framed the charge

under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code instead writing the same as 326 but

the same at any time can be altered by the learned A.C.J.M. or its successor

court. It is next submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that so far as the order

under challenge is concerned, the injury report of the victim namely Dilip

Thakur reveals that he has also sustained grievous injury. As per the injury

report the said victim has sustained one grievous injury and several simple

injuries. He was assaulted with dangerous weapons and the same has been

discussed by the learned revisional court in detail. It is then submitted that no

illegality has been committed by the learned courts below. It is next submitted

3 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
that this Cr.M.P. has been filed as a second revision which is not sustainable in

law. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be

dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, this court finds that both

the trial court as well as the learned revisional court has considered in detail

about the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 324 and 326 of

the Indian Penal Code, then considered that the victims were assaulted with

dangerous weapons like hockey stick and iron rod. One of the victim namely

Dilip Thakur has received grievous injury as per the report submitted by the

Doctor, who examined the victim and after considering the same has arrived at

the conclusion that both offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 of the

Indian Penal Code is made out.

9. In view of the discussions made above, in the considered opinion of this

court, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,

Deoghar is neither cryptic nor the same suffers from any illegality and it is a

settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought not

be exercised as a second revision which is prohibited in law.

10. So far as the contention of the learned Addl.P.P. regarding the error in

the charge is concerned, since the charge is not under challenge in this Cr.M.P. ,

but it is apparent that because of a printing error, the offence punishable under

section 326 of the Indian penal code has wrongly been mentioned as 426 of the

Indian Penal Code. So, the learned Magistrate may alter the same from 426 to

326 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with law but otherwise there is no

illegality in the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Cr. Revision No.73 of 2022 or

4 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Deoghar. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in

this Cr.M.P.

11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd of August, 2024
AFR/ Saroj

5 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *