Namal Soren vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.—The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner (original complainant) for getting leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by learned Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2008 dated 4th February, 2012, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur, in P.C.R. No. 37 of 2004 dated 18th September, 2008, whereby, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had been convicted for the offence under Sections 147/ 379/ 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides as also learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State. Looking to the evidences on record and also looking to the fact, it appears that the present petitioner (original complainant) has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have committed theft of fish, weighing approximately 150 kgs. There is no document on record to show that the petitioner (original complainant) was given settlement of the pond, in question, since the year, 2001-02. In fact, the document, which is Ext. 2, reveals that on the previous day of the incident, the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner (original complainant) of the pond. The date of incident is 21st February, 2004 and the pond, in question, was settled in favour of the petitioner (original complainant) on the previous day i.e. 20th February, 2004. Therefore, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were not aware about the said settlement. This aspect of the matter has been established and rightly this aspect of the matter has been appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2008.

Moreover, it appears that the letter of settlement of the pond, in question, in favour of the petitioner (original complainant), which is dated 20th February, 2004, must have been received after couple of days and, therefore, also respondent Nos. 2 to 7 might not be aware about the said settlement of the pond, in question, in favour of the petitioner (original complainant). This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the lower appellate Court. Even otherwise also, looking to the evidences on record, no offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and, thus, no error has been committed by the learned lower appellate Court in appreciating the evidences on record. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to prefer appeal to the petitioner (original complainant). This Criminal Misc. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.