Jharkhand High Court
Hasib Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1479 of 2015
Hasib Ansari ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For Petitioner : Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
---
08/17.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2015, passed by
Sri Pravas Kr. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal
Appeal No.68 of 2013, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge,
Lohardaga, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2013, passed by
Sri Ranjeet Kumar, learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with G.R.
Case No.169 of 2012 arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No.37 of 2012,
holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year for
the aforesaid offence. The period already undergone by petitioner during
trial was ordered to be set off.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of
the informant namely Narendra Minz alleging therein that on 30.04.2012,
he was informed that 10 KVA single phase transformer was stolen away
by unknown persons from village- Pandra.
In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of
the petitioner.
The prosecution has examined all together ten witnesses. None of
the independent witness have supported the prosecution case. In fact the
sole conviction of the petitioner is based on statement of Raj Kumar Sahu
P.W.10, who is the Investigating Officer of this case. This witness has
stated that during the course of the investigation the Mukhiya of the
village informed him that transformer was stolen by the petitioner namely
Hasib Ansari and Kalam Ansari. This petitioner was apprehended, while
kalam Ansari had absconded. The petitioner has confessed his guilt and
this confession led to the recovery of stolen transformer. The transformer
was buried inside the ground. On the pointing out by the petitioner, in the
presence of witnesses, the place was dug out and transformer was
recovered.
Raj Kumar Sahu P.W.10 has proved the seizure list, which is
Exhibit-2/1. From the perusal of seizure list, it appears that on 01.05.2012
at about 2:45 PM, 10 KVA single phase transformer was recovered in the
presence of this petitioner. The seizure list was prepared at the spot and
copy of the same was given to the petitioner.
Offence is alleged to have taken place on 30.04.2012, the stolen
transformer was recovered on the very next date i.e. on 01.05.2012.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that prosecution
has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for committing theft
of transformer from village - Pandra. Both the learned Trial Court as well
as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to a finding regarding
the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code. The sentence passed by the learned Court below does not
require any interference.
This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
