IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 871 of 2017
Shanti Devi — —- Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gopal Rajwar
3. Dhiren Rajwar
4. Pagal Rajwar
5. Nepal Rajwar —— Opp. Parties
CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.B. Mangalmurti
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 8th February 2017 passed in C.P. Case No.759 of 2011 / T.R.
No.570 of 2017 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class at
From perusal of the impugned judgment and the relevant
materials on record it emerges that the accused persons are cousins-in-law of
the complainant. They have a land dispute between them as well. As per a
settlement between the parties, property was partitioned and both parties took
their respective shares. In this background the complainant alleged that at 7
P.M. on 21st April 2011 all the accused persons entered the house of the
complainant when she was alone. They snatched and tore the blouse of the
complainant and also beat her mercilessly. In the meantime, Kalsi and silver
chain of the complainant was also snatched. On arrival of the witnesses the
accused persons fled away after giving threat to the husband of the
complainant and his family members. The accused persons were summoned
by the learned court after finding a prima-facie case under Sections 448, 323,
354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on examination of the complainant on
SA and three other inquiry witnesses. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 2 nd January 2017. C.W.1 is Sandhya Rai
who stated that all accused persons entered the house of the complainant and
assaulted her. Accused Pagal Rajwar snatched the chain of the complainant
while accused Nepal Rajwar snatched utensils of the complainant. She is the
sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. In para-8 of her cross-examination
she stated that the dispute is related to partition of land. She further stated at
para-9 that nobody went to the Police Station after incidence. She also stated
in cross-examination that she was not present at the time of the incidence.
C.W.2 Kailash Rajwar is the husband of the complainant Shanti Devi who in
his statement made the same assertion about the accused persons that they
entered the house of the complainant and when this witness reached the house
he saw accused abusing the complainant. He has stated that Pagal Rajwar took
silver chain from the neck of the complainant while Nepal Rajwar took
utensils. He also stated that accused are his cousins. The matter was not
reported to the Police. The complainant Shanti Devi has examined herself as
C.W.3 and stated about incidence that occurred on 21 st April, 2011. When she
was at home, all the accused persons entered her house and started abusing
and assaulting her. The silver chain of complainant was taken by Pagal
Rajwar while Nepal Rajwar took utensils. Pagal Rajwar tore her blouse. She
stated that she has not gone to the Police Station after the incidence. The last
witness is Charu Rajwain C.W. 4 who in her examination-in-chief stated that
all the accused persons entered the house and were making a scene regarding
the possession of land. This witness was on her way when she heard the noise
and entered the house of complainant. Pagal Rajwar snatched the chain from
the complainant while Nepal Rajwar took utensils. This witness has further
stated that the complainant is her daughter-in-law and Pagal Rajwar is the son
of her Bhaisur (elder brother-in-law).
The learned court has examined the material evidence on record
and found that the allegations on the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. has not
been supported by any other witnesses. The husband of the complainant
claims to have reached the place of occurrence immediately but in his
deposition he has not made any statement relating to the allegation of
outraging the modesty of the complainant-wife or that her blouse was torn.
The learned trial court, therefore, has disbelieved the allegations in that
regard. The learned trial court has also analyzed the evidence in relation to the
allegations for the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 379 I.P.C. and come to
a finding that they are not fit to be relied upon to render a finding of
guilt against the accused persons as no independent witness has corroborated
the incidence. The parties are relatives and all the witnesses are interested
witnesses. The learned trial court has also observed that the complainant has
never reported the incidence to the Police Station and straightway approached
the Court by way of the complaint.
We also find from the statements made at paragraph-4 of the
instant petition that though the incidence is alleged to have occurred at 7 P.M.
on 21st April, 2011 but the Complaint Case No.759 of 2011 was filed only on
25th April 2011 i.e. after a gap of four days without any cogent explanation.
Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties
in the aforesaid light, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to
make out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.)