RUPAM AKHOURI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2010 recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro by which the order recorded by Shri S.D.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R.No.262 of 2004 on 18.02.2010 was set aside and it was held by allowing the revision that there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that the offence was fit for commitment to the Court of the Special Judge, Bokaro for trial against the petitioners.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant O.P.No.2 by presenting a written report before the Bokaro Steel City Police Station narrated that on 17.03.2004 at about 6 a.m. when he reached near his Quarter No.352 -III/B, he found that his neighbour petitioner - Akhouri Basant Teshwari Prasad with his wife of Quarter No.355 - III/B suddenly started abusive language against him in his caste name by calling him 'Harizan Chamar' to which he asked him not to use such words whereupon both the husband and the wife held him by his collor and slapped him. When his wife came to rescue him on his alarm, she was also assaulted by them and in the same sequence the accused removed the chain made of gold worth Rs. 8000/ - from her neck. Disclosing the genesis, the informant narrated that the petitioners used to throw garbage in the campus of his house to which he used to oppose their conduct but he was threatened by the accused Akhouri Basant Teshwari Prasad, that he was the leader of B.J.P. and he would get his son and daughter abducted. The informant alleged that the accused had been extending torture only because he was a Harizan. Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 66 of 2004 was registered on 17.03.2004 for the alleged offence under Section 323/341/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on his written complaint.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the order recorded in Criminal Revision wherein the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro observed, "From perusal of the impugned order, I do find that the Ld. J.M. has clearly mentioned in the last paragraph that "it appears that in this case, altogether six witnesses have been examined. In this case, I.O. has not been examined. Place of occurrence is house of informant, this is not public place and no any offence committed by the accused persons u/s 3 and 4 of the S.C./ST Act." Thus I do find that the Ld. J.M. has not properly considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in which, they have specifically stated that the occurrence of this case, has taken place from the outside of the house of the informant i.e. public road at turning point. The Ld. J.M. has committed grave error to mention the P.O. is the house of the informant. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Ld. J.M. has not meticulously considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective and arrived on wrong conclusion, which is liable to be set aside."