Jharkhand High Court
Gangadhar Samant @ Bittu Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 898 of 2019
....
Gangadhar Samant @ Bittu Pandit ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
Mrs. Anjali Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP
......
I.A. No. 1638 of 2021
07/29.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. on behalf of the State.
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 898 of 2019 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
29.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018 by which the learned Sessions
Judge, Simdega has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 15 of
2018 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 15.02.2018 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar
Verma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with
Simdega P.S. Case No. 132 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No.
522 of 2016 (T. R. No. 215 of 2018) whereby the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of
three (3) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
three (3) months.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are
not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner
has been convicted on mere surmises and conjunctures. It is
submitted that the name of this petitioner has come in this case on
the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Manna Yadav. It
is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is
submitted that no seizure list witnesses have been examined on
behalf of the prosecution. It is submitted that although P.W.-1,
Pawan Kumar Jain, P.W.-2, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, P.W.-3,
Pradeep Sharma and P.W.-4, Hiralal Sharma have supported the
missing of idols and during their respective cross-examination,
they have not stated anything against this petitioner. It is submitted
that defence has examined four witnesses namely D. W.-1 Hatim
Ansari, D.W.-2, Mukti Das, D.W.-2, Bijay Kumar Nag and D.W.-
4, Sanjay Nag, however, the learned Court below discarded their
evidence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
she is not aware that whether the petitioner has been released or
not ?
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further alternatively
submitted that she is not pressing this Criminal Revision
Application on the point of conviction, rather she is pressing on
the point of sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner was in
custody from 06.12.2016 to 23.02.2017 i.e. for two (2) months and
seventeen (17) days and after conviction by the learned Trial
Court, he is in custody since 19.11.2019 till date i.e. three (3) years
and ten (10) days total (3) years and two (2) months and twenty
seven (27) days and as such, the petitioner has completed his
entire period of sentence imposed by the learned Court below and
as such, the petitioner may be released and this Criminal Revision
Application may be disposed of.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer and has submitted that idols of the Gods and
Goddesses have been recovered from the possession of this
petitioner. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Pawan Kumar Jain, P.W.-
2, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, P.W.-3, Pradeep Sharma and P.W.-4,
Hiralal Sharma have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
It is submitted that P.W.-5, Narendra Kumar Singh is the I.O. of
this case and who has fully supported the case of the prosecution
and has stated during evidence that idols have been recovered
from the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that this
Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and as such,
this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. .
5. Perused the Lower Court records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
6. As the learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing
this Criminal Revision Application on the point of conviction,
rather she has confined her prayer only on the point of sentence,
hence this Court is not looking into the merits of this case.
7. However, this Court is inclined to look into the
sentencing part in view of the fact that the petitioner was in
custody from 06.12.2016 to 23.02.2017 i.e. for two (2) months
and seventeen (17) days and after conviction by the learned Trial
Court, he is in custody since 19.11.2019 till date i.e. three (3)
years and ten (10) days total (3) years and two (2) months and
twenty seven (27) days and as such, the petitioner has completed
almost his entire period of sentence imposed by the learned Trial
Court below and which was dismissed by the learned Appellate
Court.
8. In view of the submissions made above by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and under the circumstances,
conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of the Indian
Penal Code is upheld.
9. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the
petitioner is directed to released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other cases and if he is not already released, as he has completed
the almost entire sentence as imposed by the learned Court
below and as such, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to
the extent that the period already undergone by the petitioner in
custody in this case shall be sentence of the petitioner for the
offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed
with modification in the sentence as undergone by the petitioner
during the custody.
Thus, Criminal Revision No. 898 of 2019 stands
disposed of.
I.A. No. 1638 of 2021 is also disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
