Jharkhand High Court
Munna Prasad Son Of Suresh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1172 of 2013
1. Munna Prasad son of Suresh Prasad, resident of village-
Kope, P.O. & P.S. - Manika, District-Latehar.
2. Mukesh Kumar Singh son of Jagdish Singh, resident of
village-Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. - Manika, District-Latehar.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate
---
Through: Video Conferencing
04/08.03.2021
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite party-State.
3. The instant revision application has been filed against the
judgment dated 08.10.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2013
by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar,
whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioners vide
judgment dated 21.01.2013 passed in G.R. Case No. 74 of 2008
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has been
upheld. The petitioner No.-1 has been convicted under Section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and the petitioner
No.-2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one year under Sections 419 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his
argument on the point of sentence.
Arguments of the petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
date of incident in the present case is 27.02.2008 and on the date
of conviction i.e. on 21.01.2013, both the petitioners were 23
years of age as per the recording of the age in the impugned
judgment passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the
petitioners were of tender age and the instant offence is the first
offence of the petitioners. He also submits that more than 13
years have elapsed from the date of incident and the petitioners
have remained in custody for a period of more than one month
during the pendency of the present revision petition. He
submits that admittedly on the date of occurrence, both the
petitioners were students and the petitioner No.-2 was caught
impersonating the petitioner No.-1 while giving the
examination in the school. The learned counsel submits that
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, some lenient
view may be taken by this Court and sentence be modified.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that both the
learned courts below have returned concurrent finding of facts
and no interference so far as the conviction is concerned, is
called for in revisional jurisdiction. He submits that the
judgments passed by both the learned courts below are well-
reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference.
7. However, on the point of sentence, the learned counsel
for the State has submitted that the same is left to the discretion
of the court, considering the age of the petitioners at the time of
commission of offence and considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case. He does not dispute the fact
that as per the records of the present case, there are no criminal
antecedents against the petitioners. However, the learned
counsel submits that in case this Court is inclined to grant any
relief to the petitioners on the point of sentence, then some fine
may be imposed, so that such acts are not repeated by the
petitioners.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the records of the case, this Court finds that the
prosecution case is based on a written report in printed letter
pad of Government Girls High School, Latehar, Jharkhand by
the Principal-cum-Examination Centre Superintendent of the
said school to the Officer-in-charge, Latehar on 27.02.2008. It
was alleged that on 27.02.2008 in the second period the
examination of History of intermediate class was going on. In
the said examination centre room No.-7, Mukesh Kumar Singh
was caught red handed by invigilators, namely, Smt. Indu
Marki and Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav during the intermediate
examination on 27.02.2008 in place of co-accused Munna Prasad
bearing Roll No. 30546. The aforesaid invigilators were deputed
in the said examination centre by the local District
Superintendent of Education, Latehar and thereafter the said
accused were handed over by the said Principal-cum-
Examination Centre Superintendent to the Police Station
concerned for taking legal action. Along with the written report
certain documents were also annexed i.e. the original Admit
Card and question paper, Answer Sheet bearing Roll No. 30546,
confessional statement of Mukesh Kumar Singh and the report
of invigilator on the same, sample of signature. On the basis of
the aforesaid information, a formal F.I.R. was drawn up for the
offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
9. This Court further finds that the charge-sheet was
submitted on 29.04.2008 for offence under Sections 420 and
120-B of IPC against both the accused persons and cognizance
was taken on 30.06.2008. The police papers were also supplied
to the petitioners and charge was framed against both the
accused on 03.03.2009 for offence under Sections 420 and 120-B
of IPC and they pleaded not guilty and thereafter, evidence on
behalf of the prosecution was initiated. The prosecution
evidence took a long time for completion and the statement of
the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. only on
20.12.2012 who claimed to be innocent. However, no defence
evidence was given on behalf of the petitioners. The
prosecution had examined altogether 5 witnesses and various
documentary evidences were also exhibited.
10. This Court finds that after considering the evidences of
the prosecution, materials on record and hearing the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned trial
court convicted the petitioners vide paragraph-26 onwards of
the impugned judgment which is quoted as under: -
"26.From the materials available on record scrutinizing
the evidences, attending facts and circumstances, I find
that to some extent there is omission and contradiction in
the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. In this regard I
do like to express that whatever omission or contradiction
has come from the mouth of the witnesses that cannot be
counted as a rule rather it can be said in a manner of
exception. Of course it was the duty of the police officials to
deliver a copy of the seizure list to the accused Mukesh
Kumar Singh but this has not been done as per statute nor
the signature of the said accused was obtained on the
seizure list. It is also a matter of fact that the evidence of
investigating officer has not been adduced before the court
by the prosecution agency and the reason best known to
him. In the light of the above facts and circumstances in
my view it can not be said that there is no existence of this
case rather it gives light in a full manner that Mukesh
Kumar Singh appeared into Intermediate examination of
History subject in place of Munna Prasad and without
conspiracy such act can not be done so it can be said from
the attending circumstances that there was connivance in
between Mukesh Kumar Singh and Munna Prasad and
thereafter such act was done, so both the aforesaid accused
persons are liable for the offence u/s 120B I.P.C as such I
hold guilty to the accused Munna Prasad and Mukesh
Kumar Singh and thereby they are convicted for the offence
u/s 120B I.P.C.
28. With regard to the offence u/s 419 I.P.C, I hold guilty
to the accused Mukesh Kumar Singh and thereby he is
convicted for the same. The accused persons are on bail,
hence their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and taken into
custody."
11. The learned trial court also passed the sentence against
the petitioners and refused to give benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act and was of the view that considering the nature
of offence, the said benefit need not be given to the petitioners.
The learned trial court convicted the petitioners as aforesaid for
a period of one year as under: -
"The learned counsel for the convicts namely Munna
Prasad and Mukesh Kumar Singh has submitted that it is
the first offence of the convicts and they never been indulged
with any criminal activity nor there is any criminal
antecedent against them. At the same time it has been
argued that the convicts are a students aged about 23 years,
as such the benefit of probation of offenders Act u/s 4 of
1958 may be provided.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the state
submitted that the act of the said convicts are not excusable
and if the lenient view will be adopted then the bad message
will pass in the society, therefore, the convicts are not entitle
for any leniency as they have committed the heinous crime.
On going through the submissions made by both the
defence as well as prosecution, I do not feel proper to give
the benefit of probation of offenders Act u/s 4 of 1958 Act.
Looking all the affairs and the materials available on the
record and considering all the attending facts and
surrounding circumstances and seeing the circumstances
prevailing on the convicts and at the same time seeing the
seriousness of the offence for the ends of justice I do like to
pass the sentence against the convict Mukesh Kumar Singh
for the offence u/s 419 and 120B I.P.C and the convict
Munna Prasad for the offence u/s 120B I.P.C, accordingly
the convict Mukesh Kumar Singh is sentenced to undergo
S.I for one year for the offence u/s 419 I.P.C and further is
sentenced to undergo S.I for one year for the offence u/s 120
B I.P.C and both the sentences will run concurrently.
Further the convict Munna Prasad is sentenced to undergo
S.I for one year for the offence u/s 120B I.PC."
12. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners filed
appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 10/2013.
The learned appellate court also scrutinized the evidences on
record and gave concurrent finding of facts and upheld the
conviction and sentence of both the petitioners. The learned
appellate court did not find any perversity or illegality in the
findings recorded by the learned trial court while convicting the
petitioners.
13. After going through both the judgments of the learned
courts below, this Court finds that there are concurrent finding
of facts recorded by both the courts below after appreciating the
materials on record and no illegality or perversity as such
pointed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners who has confined his argument on the point of
sentence. This Court further finds that the incident is of
27.02.2008 and the petitioners were convicted in the year 2013
and on the date of conviction, the age of the petitioners were 23
years. It appears that the petitioners have committed the
offence at a tender age and admittedly, there are no criminal
antecedents against the petitioners. This Court also finds that
for the offence under Section 419 IPC, there is no minimum
sentence prescribed. Considering the fact that the petitioners
have faced rigors of criminal case for more than 13 years and
have remained in custody for more than one month during the
pendency of the present revision petition, this court is of the
considered view that the ends of justice would be served, if the
sentence of the petitioners is modified to some extent.
Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified
and is confined to the period already gone in custody with
further fine of Rs. 5,000/- each to be deposited by the
petitioners before the learned courts below within a period of
two months from the date of communication of this judgment
to the learned court below. If the aforesaid fine amount is not
deposited within the aforesaid timeframe, then the petitioners
would undergo the punishment which has already been
imposed by the learned court below and the bail bonds
furnished by the petitioners will stand cancelled. Upon deposit
of the fine amount within aforesaid timeframe, the petitioners
will be discharged of their liabilities under the bail bond.
14. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby
disposed of with the aforesaid modification and direction.
15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
16. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
