If the court has not committed any illegality or irregularity, the revision won’t succeed. : Jharkhand High Court
The revision cannot succeed where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality, material irregularity, or impropriety in passing the impugned judgement and order. If the impugned order appears to be presentable, without any flaw that would render it completely perverse or unacceptable, and there is no failure of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Said, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary of the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Doma Munda Son Of Late Bair Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand [ Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2012]
This judgement was provided over the facts that read the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the seizure list witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case by stating that there was no seizure in their presence, but it is undeniable that they have admitted signing the seizure list. In the current case, the investigation officer and other official witnesses, as discussed in the trial and appellate court decisions, have fully supported the prosecution case, including on the point of seizure. While the learned counsel of the opposition opposed the prayer, arguing that there are concurrent findings recorded by the lower courts and that there is no scope for evidence re-appreciation under revisional jurisdiction. He also claimed that the prosecution’s official witnesses fully supported the prosecution’s case and were fully cross-examined by the defence. He argued that the learned appellate court took into account the fact that local residents do not come forward to testify against extremists due to fear. He also claimed that, given the nature and gravity of the offences, the petitioner is ineligible for any relief under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and reviewing the impugned judgments as well as the lower court records of the case, this Court concludes that the prosecution case is based on the self-statement of Sub-Inspector Digvijay Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Arki Police Station, recorded on May 21, 2006. On 21.05.2006, the Informant allegedly received confidential telephonic information that some Naxalites had stayed with arms in the house of one Dhono Munda, and after registering the sanha, the matter was informed to higher police officers, and thereafter, police officials reached Arki Police Station and proceeded to verify the information at around 3 A.M.When they arrived at the scene around 4 a.m., they took two independent witnesses, Sukhram Munda and Lakhindra Nag, and conducted the raid in their presence after surrounding Dhono Munda’s house. When the door was opened, one person was arrested and identified as Dhono Munda, who was armed with a double-barrel gun. Two more people were discovered sleeping, and their names were revealed to be Budhan Lal Munda and Doma Munda (Petitioner). It was also claimed that one loaded country-made gun was recovered from the bed and that, when asked, neither any paper nor a satisfactory explanation was provided. As a result, a seizure list was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, and all three people were arrested. It was also claimed that Dhono Munda disclosed that he is the president of the Kishan committee and that his co-accused, Budhan Lal Munda, disclosed that he is the secretary of the Kishan committee. The petitioner stated that he is an RMP Doctor who treats extremists. Budhan Lal Munda and Dhono Munda also admitted to assisting extremists in collecting the levy.
In light of the aforementioned discussions and findings, as well as the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned courts below issued well-reasoned judgments taking into account every aspect of the matter. There is no need for intervention because the impugned judgments contain no perversity or illegality. As a result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner’s bail bond is hereby cancelled. Any interim order, if any, is null and void. Any pending interlocutory application is also dismissed as unpressed.