MEENA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga, whereby and whereunder, learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga dated 24.02.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 107 of 1998 corresponding to Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 28 0f 1998 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the sole accused of that case who is the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2003 and opposite Party No. 2 of this revision for the offences punishable under section 420, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for three years, rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively and ordered that the sentences will run concurrently but acquitted him of the charge for the offence punishable under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the younger sister of the Informant namely Rajni Kumari appeared in the Final Examination of the Bihar School Examination Board. Rajni Kumari could not answer some papers properly and her result was pending. The accused - opposite party no. 2 of this revision in course of discussion told the informant of the case who is the petitioner of this revision, that if the informant pays the accused Rs.3,500/-, he will get Rajni Kumari pass the said examination and in case of Rajni Kumari not passing the examination, the money will be refunded to the informant by the accused. In June, 1997 the informant paid Rs.1,300/-. Rajni Kumari failed the examination but the accused returned only Rs.300/-. On 18.01.1997 the accused along with three other persons surrounded the informant and after threatening to murder her; forcibly obtained her signature on revenue stamp affixed on plain paper.

(3.) During the trial the prosecution altogether examined four witnesses and proved the written report and various letters. The learned trial court after considering the materials available on the record relied on Exhibit - 5 which is a torn and illegible application allegedly in the handwriting of the accused to some authority which is not legible of the Bihar School Examination committee, Branch - Ranchi the for reevaluation of the papers of Rajni Kumari, which was not seized by police during investigation and was marked with objection that the same was not written by the accused and observed that this shows police was in collusion with the accused. Further though in his defence the accused only produced the certified copy of the order sheet dated 23.05.2001 of case no. M-263/2000 and the same was marked Exhibit-A being a public document, but the learned trial court quoted extensively from the report submitted by the officer in-charge on the basis of which the said proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated and observed that the contents thereof fully supports the case of the prosecution. PW1 is a hostile witness who did not support the case of the prosecution; PW 2 is an eye witness to the entrustment of money to the accused. PW3 is the informant. PW4 is the IO of the case. After taking into account the aforesaid materials the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused of the case as already indicated above.