Ganesh Kumhar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 826 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Cr. Revision No. 910 of 2013

                   Ganesh Kumhar                     ...     ...          Petitioner
                                       Versus
                   The State of Jharkhand        ...       ...           Opp. Party
                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

09/19.02.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has argued his case.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava has also advanced his arguments.

3. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been alleged that three persons were riding on the same motorcycle and the motorcycle was alleged to be a theft property. He submits that initially the case was lodged against all the three persons under the Arms Act as well as under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court convicted all the three both under the Arms Act as well as under Section 414 of IPC. Out of three persons, two had filed an appeal and one did not move in appeal.

4. So far as the two persons who filed the appeal including the present petitioner are concerned, the conviction under the Arms Act was set-aside and the conviction under Section 414 of IPC was sustained. The co-appellant has not preferred any revision, but the present petitioner has preferred revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it has not come in evidence as to who was driving the vehicle and merely because a person was found riding a vehicle, the same does not indicate that he was in possession of the stolen vehicle. He submits that considering the totality of the

facts and circumstances of this case and in absence of any evidence as to which person was driving the vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. He also submits that no evidence has been brought on record from the side of the prosecution that there was active concealment on the part of the petitioner regarding the stolen property and accordingly, basic ingredient of offence under Section 414 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. He submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and therefore the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a serious error in the judgment passed by the learned court below that the motorcycle was exhibited, but in fact the motorcycle was never exhibited as a material exhibit and it appears that the same was released in favour of the owner. He submits that vehicle ought to have been exhibited before the learned court below.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State submits that he has to examine the records further in the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned and is directed to be posted on 26.02.2021 for further hearing treated as part heard.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul