Jharkhand High Court
Khaitu Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.431 of 2012
1. Khaitu Ansari, S/o Late Khalil Ansari (deleted vide order dated 16.09.21)
2. Lukman Ansari S/o Samir Ansari
Both resident of village - Gaychhanda
P.O. Ganjori, P.S. Jaridih, District-Bokaro .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
Through:Video Conferencing
4/16.09.2021 Learned counsel Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners is present.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of
the State is present.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that an affidavit has
been filed in the said case indicating that petitioner No.1 has
expired and it is submitted that no fine amount, as such, is
involved in the present case.
4. Considering the submission made, the present petition
stands abated so far it relates to petitioner No.1.
5. The office is directed to delete the name of petitioner No.1
from the cause title in red ink.
6. Learned counsel for the State further submits that so far as
petitioner No.2 is concerned, an affidavit by the state indicates
that he has no criminal antecedent.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the surviving petitioner
submits that he is confining his submissions on the point of
sentence.
8. Learned counsel submits that the matter relates to theft of
a bicycle and the petitioner along with the co-accused, i.e., is
original petitioner No.1, were caught on the spot and the cycle
was recovered from them. Learned counsel has submitted that
the present case was instituted as back as in the year 2001 and
more than 20 years have elapsed. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State pursuant to the order passed by this Court
indicating that there is no other criminal antecedent against the
surviving petitioner. He also submits that the surviving
petitioner had surrendered before the learned lower court below
during the present revision on 3.05.2012 and was directed to be
enlarged on bail vide order dated 4.07.2012. He submits that
during trial, the surviving petitioner has remained in custody
right from the date of FIR, i.e., 6.05.2001 to 14.06.2001 and
ultimately, he was released on bail. Learned counsel submits
that surviving petitioner has thus completed more than three
months of custody, out of the six months as directed by the
learned court below. He submits that some sympathetic view
may be taken considering the totality and facts and
circumstances of case and the sentence of the petitioner be
modified to the period already undergone and some fine amount
may be imposed. He also submits that there is no minimum
sentence as such prescribed for the offences under Sections 379
and 411 of IPC.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the
other hand submits that there are concurrent findings recorded
by the court below and the petitioner was apprehended on the
spot and there is no scope for interference with the concurrent
findings, which have been recorded after considering the
materials on record and there is no illegality, perversity in the
impugned judgment. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned
counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the surviving
petitioner has no any criminal antecedent and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, it is up to the court to pass
appropriate order on the point of sentence. However, he submits
that if the sentence is modified, some fine amount may be
imposed.
10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this
Court finds that the informant of the case filed a written report to
the officer in-charge of the concerned police station on 5.05.2001,
stating that at about 7.45 am, when he had gone to collect his
blood report and parked his cycle in the free stand and when he
came out after collecting the report after an hour, he saw that two
persons were breaking the lock of the cycle and when he raised
alarm, both these persons ran with the cycle and upon alarm, the
persons around, chased those two persons and caught them.
When they were asked, they revealed their name as Khaithu
Ansari and Lukman Ansari and the cycle was also recovered and
the tools for breaking the lock was recovered from the possession
of the present petitioner.
11. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under
Sections 379 / 411 of IPC and after considering the evidences on
record, the learned trail court convicted both the apprehended
persons for offence under Section 379 / 411 of IPC. The appeal
filed by both the convicts was also dismissed.
12. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings
recorded by the learned courts below after considering the
materials on record and there is no scope for reconsideration of
the evidences and coming to different findings as there is no
illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the conviction of
the accused persons, out of them one has expired during the
pendency of the present case.
13. Accordingly, the conviction of the surviving petitioner is
upheld.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his
arguments on the point of sentence. This Court finds that the
present matter is of the year 2001 and more than 20 years have
elapsed from the date of incident. The State has also filed
counter affidavit pursuant to the order passed by this Court
indicating that the surviving petitioner has no criminal
antecedent. The fact also remains that the petitioner has
remained in custody for more than three months, out of the total
period of six months. This Court finds that the petitioner has
faced the criminal for a very long time and accordingly the ends
of justice would be served, if the sentence of the petitioner is
modified with some fine amount.
15. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby
modified and is confined to the period already undergone in
judicial custody with a fine of Rs.500/- only, which is to be
deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within
a period of two months from the date of communication of this
Judgment to the learned court below. If the fine amount is not
deposited within the stipulated time, he will serve the sentence
awarded by the learned court below. If the amount is deposited,
the petitioner as well as the bailers will be discharged from the
liability of the bail bonds.
16. This criminal revision is disposed of with aforesaid
modification of sentence.
17. Le the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned.
18. The pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of
as not pressed.
19. Let the order be communicated to the court concerned
through FAX / e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
R.Kumar/
