SHYAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Arguments of the petitioner

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 118/2010 by the learned District & Additional District Judge-III, Dumka, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 838/2006 (T.R. No. 83/2010) arising out of Dumka (Town) P.S. Case No. 140/2006 has been confirmed. He submits that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 354, six months for offence under Section 506 and three months for offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code with stipulation that all the sentences will run concurrently and the period undergone in detention shall be set-off as per law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out under section 354 of Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submits that the contents of the First Information Report has been recorded in the impugned judgments and as per the FIR, there is no such allegation that the petitioner ever caught hold of the informant (victim). He submits that when the informant deposed as P.W.- 1 before the learned court below, she has improved her allegations over and above whatever was stated in the First Information Report. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been convicted only on the basis of examination of two witnesses i.e. the informant (P.W.-1) and her brother (P.W.-2). He further submits that one person, namely, Sanjay who had appeared as P.W.-3 had turned hostile although he was named in the FIR as a person who caught hold of the petitioner and had taken him to the police station. He further submits that even the father of the informant did not appear for his examination before the learned trial court although he was one of the charge-sheeted witnesses. The learned counsel submits that there were altogether three attesting witnesses to the FIR, namely, Nand Kumar Murmu, Saiman Murmu (P.W.-2) and Fransis Hembrom and only Saiman Murmu (P.W.-2) has been examined before the learned trial court. He also submits that even the investigating officer of the case has not been examined before the learned court below. The learned counsel submits that the complainant and her brother were highly interested witnesses and their evidences were not sufficient to convict the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of this case and accordingly no case under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the present revision application calls for interference and the order of conviction of the petitioner under sections 354, 506 and 509 of IPC is fit to be set-aside.