Dilip Das Karua vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3005 Jhar

IN THE       HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 945 of 2010
                                 -------

Dilip Das Karua @ Dilip Karua ...... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party

--------

CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                 --------
For the Petitioner        : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. A. K. Dey, A.P.P
                                 --------

12/ Dated 19.08.2023
      Heard the parties.

The petitioner Dilip Das Karua @ Dilip Karua has filed this application against the judgment dated 22.01.2008 passed by Sri Prem Prakash Pandey, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.148/2004, whereby and wherein, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2004, passed by Sri Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No.105/2001, arising out of Telco P.S. Case No.18/2001, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for three years for each of the aforesaid offences. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period already undergone by the petitioner was ordered to be set off.

The petitioner was further directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as fine which was to be returned back to the victims, from whose account, the petitioner had withdrawn money.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a typed report of the informant Prashuram Prasad Srivastava, the Senior Manager of Central Bank of India at Telco Town Branch, Jamshedpur, alleging therein that the petitioner who used to work as clerk in Teller counter No.3 has unauthorizedly withdrawn amount of Rs.3,15,000/- from the accounts of several customers.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the

guilt of the petitioner.

From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that Siyaram Thakur P.W.5, Ramagaya Thakur P.W.6, Kishan Mukhi P.W.7 and Gidan Topno P.W.8, all have stated that they have accounts in the Central Bank of India, Telco Town Branch, Jamshedpur. The petitioner used to attend the Teller Counter No.3. They have stated that there was sufficient money in their accounts but when they went to withdraw money, they came to know that the petitioner has unauthorizedly withdrawn money from their accounts.

The matter was reported to the Branch Manager. The petitioner was confronted with the fact that he had unauthorizedly withdrawn money from the accounts of the customers. The petitioner made extra judicial confession before the informant and other bank employees that he had withdrawn money from the accounts of the customers.

The informant Prashuram Prasad Srivastava has been examined as P.W.4. He has supported the case as made out in the typed report. He has proved the typed report which has been marked as Exhibit-9. He has stated that on 09.01.2001, he received a complaint that money was withdrawn illegally and unauthorizedly from the accounts of several customers. On 13.01.2001, written complaint was made against the petitioner, who used to attend the Counter No.3, stating that the petitioner had made wrong entries in the passbooks of the customers and thereafter, he withdrew amounts from their accounts. He had stated that the petitioner had made extra judicial confession in writing before him and other bank employees that he had withdrawn the amounts from the accounts of the customers. He has proved the written extra judicial confession which were marked as Exhibit-2 series. This witness has further stated that the departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, in which, he was found guilty.

Baidyanath Singh P.W.1 was the Assistant Branch Manager of Telco Town Branch at the time of occurrence. He has corroborated the statement of the informant Prashuram Prasad Srivastava P.W.4 that the petitioner had unauthorizedly withdrawn money from the accounts of several customers. He has also stated that the petitioner had made written extra judicial confession before the bank authorities. He has further stated that the

petitioner used to make wrong entries in the passbooks of the customers by showing lesser amounts and withdrew remaining amounts from the accounts of the customers.

He has proved withdrawal slips of the accounts of customers which are Exhibit-4 series.

Sukanto Kumar @ Sukanto Kumar Seth P.W.2 is another bank employee, who has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the petitioner used to attend the Teller Counter No.3 and had unauthorizedly withdrawn money from several customers. He has also stated that the modus operandi of the petitioner was that he used to make wrong entries in the passbooks of the customers and thereafter, he used to withdraw the differential amounts from their accounts.

Tribhuwan Nath Sharma P.W.3 is another bank employee, who has supported the prosecution case and has stated that from the account of Kishan Mukhi being Account No.12364, money was withdrawn and wrong entries were made. He has proved the wrong entries made in the passbook. Thereafter, he has proved the passbooks of other customers in which wrong entries were made, these are Exhibit-6 series.

From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that the petitioner had confessed in writing that he had withdrawn money from several customers. He has made confession regarding the money withdrawn from the account of each individual customers which has been marked as Exhibit-2 series. The wrong entries made in the passbooks have been marked as Exhibit-6 series. The complaint of customers that their money was unauthorizedly withdrawn from their accounts, are Exhibits-7 & 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been found guilty on the basis of his extra-judicial confession, which cannot be the basis for his conviction.

Reliance has been placed upon the judgment reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 663, in which, it has been held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession could not be sustained.

In the present case, the conviction of petitioner is based not solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession. Several account holders, from whose accounts money was unathorizedly withdrawn, have pointed out that the petitioner used to attend Teller Counter No.3, from which, he used to withdraw money. The petitioner had made wrong entries in the passbooks of the customers and subsequently, he withdrew money from their accounts. All of them have identified the petitioner.

Their oral testimony is corroborated by the wrong entries made in their passbooks. Thereafter, the petitioner has made extra-judicial confession in writing that he had withdrawn money from several customers.

Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is upheld and does not require any interference.

Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

BS/                                                    (Ambuj Nath, J.)