Jharkhand High Court
Govind Goswami @ Govind Gosai @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 593 of 2003
Govind Goswami @ Govind Gosai @ Govind, son of Medhu Gosai,
resident of quarter-Mrulidih 20, P.O.+ P.S. Mahuda, District-Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
8/18.02.2022 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-state.
3. The case of the petitioner was argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on 08.12.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
furtherance of his argument has referred to a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 (S.
Varadarajan vs. State of Madras) and submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has elaborately explained the term taking out of lawful
guardianship and held that the proximate cause is required to be seen.
He submits that in the present case, the petitioner had voluntarily
moved out of his house with his friend and thereafter he had gone to
the railway station from where he has alleged to have been kidnapped.
The learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter,
the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set aside.
4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel has also submitted that the present occurrence had taken place
as back as in the year 1983 and about 38 years have elapsed from the
date of occurrence. The charge was framed on 06.12.1997 and the
petitioner was convicted by the trial court in the year 1998. Thereafter
the appeal was also dismissed. During the trial, the petitioner has
remained in custody for about two months and at the stage of revision,
he had surrendered before the learned court below on 11.06.2003 and
granted bail by an order of this court dated 17.07.2003 and a few days
must have been taken in furnishing the bail bonds. Thus the petitioner
has remained in custody for a period of more than three months.
Considering the long period of criminal case which the petitioner has
faced, the sentence be modified and limited to the period already
undergone by the petitioner in custody.
5. In response, learned counsel for the opposite party-state has
opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent
findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope
for re-appreciation of evidences on record and coming to a different
finding. She also submits that the victim of the case was also
examined before the learned court below and the victim has clearly
stated, even during his cross examination, that the petitioner along
with the co-accused had forced him to board the train and taken him
away and later on somehow the victim escaped from their custody and
ultimately he came to his mother. She submits that so far as the
sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take a call. In case, this
court is inclined to modify the sentence, then some heavy fine amount
should also be imposed upon the petitioner.
6. Arguments concluded.
7. Post this case for judgment on 25.03.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
