Jharkhand High Court
Mukhlal Prasad @ Mukhlal Bhuia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2023
Cr. Revision No.187 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.187 of 2016
----------
Mukhlal Prasad @ Mukhlal Bhuia ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P
---------
C.A.V On 31.01.2023 Pronounced On 19.05.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner Mukhlal Prasad @ Mukhlal Bhuia has filed this
revision application against the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Cr.Appeal No.137 of
2012, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI,
Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2012 passed by Sri
Akhilesh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Dhanbad in
connection with Kenduadih P.S Case No.66 of 1995, corresponding to
G.R Case No.2004 of 1995 (M), holding the petitioner guilty of the
offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentencing him to undergo R.I for two years. The period of detention
already undergone by the petitioner during trial was ordered to be set off.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report
of the informant, alleging therein that on 02.06.1995, he along-with his
companion Udai Saw were selling cloths on ferry. When they reached
near Godhar Main Road, at about 2:30 P.M, four miscreants on scooter
and motorcycle waylaid them. One of the miscreants gave a butt blow on
his head due to which, he sustained injuries. The miscreants snatched
away the bundle of clothes and took away his silver chain and wrist
watch of the informant. The value of the looted clothes and other
belongings have been stated to be Rs.8,000/-.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral
and documentary evidence.
Udai Sao has been examined as P.W.1 but the deposition has been
Cr. Revision No.187 of 2016
signed by Gopal Yadav.
The informant, Udai Sao has also been examined as P.W.2.
Ramu Pandit has been examined as P.W.3 and Suraj Ram has been
examined as P.W.4.
On the basis of the oral evidence available on record, the learned
trial court held the petitioner Mukhlal Prasad @ Mukhlal Bhuia guilty of
offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him
accordingly. Learned Appellate Court also did not find any merit in this
appeal of the petitioner and the same was dismissed.
It appears that Udai Sao P.W.2 has also been shown to be examined
as P.W.1 whereas the deposition has been signed by Gopal Yadav, so it
will not be proper to read the evidence of this witness. Again, Udai Sao
has been examined as P.W.2. He appears to be the informant of the case.
He has stated that at about 2:00 P.M., he along-with his companion were
selling cloths in ferry. When they reached near Kusunda Station, four
miscreants on a scooter and motorcycle waylaid them. The accused
persons snatched silver chain and took away their clothes. One of the
accused assaulted him on his head by the butt of the pistol. The accused
persons also snatched away his wrist watch. He had identified the
petitioner in the dock and had stated that he had also identified him in T.I.
Parade.
This witness has been cross-examined at length. He has stated in
his cross-examination that he had participated in the T.I. Parade. The T.I.
Parade was held at about 2:00-3:00 P.M. He has further stated that he
used to sell the clothes in ferry since last 5-6 years.
Ramu Pandit P.W.3 has been declared hostile.
Suraj Ram P.W.4 has stated that on the date of occurrence in
between 2:30 to 3:00 P.M, he was standing near his tea stall when a
person on a motorcycle came there and shouting that his clothes have
been looted. The informant in his deposition has stated that the
occurrence took place near Hazra Basti.
From the perusal of the testimony of the informant Udai Sao P.W.2,
it appears that the informant has fully supported his case as made out in
the written report. He has been cross-examined at length. There is nothing
in the cross-examination to doubt his veracity. He has identified the
Cr. Revision No.187 of 2016
petitioner both in the dock as well as in the T.I. Parade. He had stated that
the accused persons had assaulted him by the butt of the pistol on his
head.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the
offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable
doubts and the learned trial Court has rightly held him guilty for the
aforesaid offence.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 02.06.1995, i.e.,
about 30 years ago, the petitioner has faced the rigors of trial for a very
prolong period of time. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the learned
court below directing the petitioner to undergo R.I for two years for the
offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to undergo
R.I. for one year.
The period undergone by the petitioner during trial is ordered to be
set off.
This revision application is partly allowed with the modification of
sentence.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
BS/-
