Niranjan Singh Son Of Late Ram ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4315 Jhar

                                           1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        Cr. Revision No. 361 of 2003

                Niranjan Singh son of late Ram Swaroop Singh, resident of
                Village Musmusaia P.S. Serghati Dist. Gaya. At present
                residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Ghato P.S. Mandu Dist.
                Hazaribagh.                       ...     ...    Petitioner

                                     -Versus-

                The State of Jharkhand           ...     ...        Opp. Party
                                    ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

04/22.11.2021

1. Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2003 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2002, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1362/1996, T.R. No. 2090/2002.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under the same section.

5. From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the present case was admitted vide order dated 29.04.2003 with a clear indication that this application will be heard on the question of sentence only and the petitioner was also directed to be enlarged on bail.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while advancing his argument on the point of sentence, has submitted that the incident of the present case is of 09.08.1996 and more than 25 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence. The petitioner on the date of his conviction i.e., 24.05.2002 was 36 years of age and as on date his age is more than 55 years. He further submits that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below do not reflect any previous conviction of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 09.08.1996 and was released on bail 23.08.1996 and thereafter, he has further remained in detention at the stage of filing of the present revision application and was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2003. He further submits that the present case was filed on 25.04.2003 and on that date, the petitioner was in custody and the Vakalatnama indicates that it was executed on 19.04.2003.

7. The learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner was caught with certain iron articles while he was in the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. BRU-48 and he was caught by the security personnel. He submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 379 of IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

8. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner be modified and limited to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. He submits that if this Court finds it proper, some fine amount may be imposed and no useful purpose would be served after sending the petitioner to jail again after a long gap.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding. He submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, some fine amount may be imposed as the petitioner was caught red handed with the articles. He also submits that at the time of apprehending the petitioner, the petitioner and the co-accused tried to run away and one of the persons of security personnel was also injured.

Findings of this Court

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a written report of Security Officer, TISCO, West Bokaro, wherein it has been alleged that on 09.08.1996 on receiving confidential report, the informant and other Security Personnel went to check-post and waited for arrival of the ambassador car bearing registration No. BRU-48. The said vehicle arrived at the check- post at about 5:15 a.m. and the Security Personnel gave signal to stop the vehicle, but the vehicle did not obey the signal and went on. Thereafter, the security personnel chased the said vehicle through Jeep and ultimately intercepted the said vehicle and on search made by the security personnel, three pieces of iron loco excels and one raxon loco engine and five pieces of wheels of loco engine loaded, were recovered inside the said car. The security personnel found two persons sitting inside the car and both the persons were apprehended by the security personnel who disclosed their name as Niranjan Singh (present petitioner) and Arun Kumar Paswan. The security personnel brought the said car along with apprehended persons before

the police, west Bokaro O.P. and the informant Harbansh Kumar, security officer, submitted written report.

11. On the basis of the written report, Mandu P.S. Case No. 248/1996 under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was initiated. During investigation, the investigating officer of the case prepared a production-cum-seizure list in respect of the seized articles and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC and the charges were framed.

12. In course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners; out of them, P.W.-1 Dudhnath Mahto is a security inspector, P.W.-2 Rajiv Singh and P.W.-3 Suresh Singh are the S.I. of security, P.W.4 Dr. T.B. Singh is the medical officer, P.W.-5 Jainarayan Singh and P.W.6 Sarju Prasad Yadav are the ocular evidence to the evidence, P.W.7 is the informant of the case and P.W.-8 Bhaiya Santosh Kumar is a formal witness.

13. The prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and have been duly cross-examined. The production-cum-seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.-1, along with the signature of seizure witnesses marked as exhibit 1/1 and 1/2. The medical officer, P.W-4, who examined the security personnel Dudhnath Mahto, has proved his injury report as Ext.-2. The written report, has been marked as Ext. 3.

14. After closure of the evidences, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incremating materials were put to him.

15. The learned trial court after carefully scrutinizing the materials on record held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 379 of the IPC levelled against the petitioner and accordingly, convicted him under the same

section and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

16. The learned appellate court has also considered all the materials available on record and the arguments advanced by the appellant and gave its finding at Para-16 of the judgment as follows: -

"On careful consideration of the evidence available on the record and after giving anxious thought to argument placed by the learned counsel of both sides, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, I find and hold both the accused/appellants guilty u/s 379 I.P.C. The learned J.M. has rightly convicted the accused/appellants for the offence u/s 379 I.P.C. The order of sentence passed by the learned J.M. does not require any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, this appeal has no merit, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M. is upheld and this appeal is hereby dismissed. Since the accused/appellants are on bail, their bail is hereby cancelled."

17. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given concurrent finding of facts in connection with offence committed by the petitioner under Section 379 of the IPC and there is no illegality or perversity, as such, has been pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned judgment of conviction in view of the fact that the present petition was admitted only for consideration of on the point of sentence. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court.

18. Considering the fact that there is no previous conviction of the petitioner on record and the petitioner has remained in custody for some time during trial and also for some time during the pendency of the present case and more than 25 years have elapsed from the date of the incident which is dated 09.08.1996, this Court finds it proper to modify the sentence of the petitioner to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified and confined it to

the period already undergone by him in judicial custody in connection with the present case with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned court below.

19. Upon deposit of the fine amount as aforesaid, the petitioner as well as his bailors will stand discharged from their liabilities under the bail bonds. In case, the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated timeframe, bail bonds furnished by the petitioner will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and he would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned trial court.

20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

22. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court below.

23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul