Jharkhand High Court
Sufal Horo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1143 of 2016
1. Sufal Horo
2. Goerge Stephan ... Petitioners
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
---
09/10.10.2023
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have filed this revision application against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2016, passed by
Sri Rajesh Kumar No.1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in
Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2013, whereby and wherein, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, dismissed the appeal of the
petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 20.06.2013, passed by Sri Nishant Kumar, learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti in connection with G.R. Case No.277 of
2011 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No.30 of 2011, holding the petitioners
guilty of offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentencing them to undergo R.I. for three years alongwith fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to
undergo S.I. for one month.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement
of the informant namely Talkeshwar Ram, alleging therein that on
18.07.2011 at about 11:00 A.M., motorcycle garage of one Chotu was
raided at Torpa. Both these petitioners were found getting stolen
motorcycle repaired in the garage. Seizure list was accordingly prepared.
4. 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 petitioners.
5. From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, it appears that the informant Talkeshwar Ram has been
examined as P.W.5. He has supported the allegation as made out in his
statement and has stated that on 18.07.2011, on the basis of confidential
information motorcycle repairing garage of Chotu Mistry was raided.
Both these petitioners were found getting stolen motorcycle repaired from
there. He has further stated that he has prepared the seizure list, he has
proved the seizure list which has been marked Exhibit-1.
6. Pushpa Raj Ojha P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of this case.
He has stated that during the investigation, it transpired that the stolen
motorcycle, which was recovered from motorcycle repairing garage of
Chotu Mistry was subject matter of Doranda P.S. Case No.181 of 2011.
The informant of that case Shibu Tigga had got aforesaid case instituted as
his motorcycle was stolen by the unknown thief.
7. From the perusal of the seizure list which is Exhibit-1, it
transpires that motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-01T-4783 was
recovered from the garage of Chotu Mistry. A copy of the seizure list was
handed over to the petitioner Sufal Horo, but it has not been handed over
to the petitioner Goerge Stephan.
8. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident
that the prosecution has been able to prove that the motorcycle bearing
registration No. JH01A-3417 was subject matter of Doranda P.S. Case
No.181 of 2011 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It
further appears from the seizure list that the copy of the seizure list was
handed over to the petitioner Sufal Horo, but copy of the seizure list was
not handed over to the petitioner Goerge Stephan as he has not made any
endorsement on the seizure list.
9. From this facts, it becomes doubtful that the petitioner Goerge
Stephan was apprehended from the place of occurrence. Accordingly, I
come to finding that the prosecution has been able to prove that the
petitioner Sufal Horo was apprehended from the place of occurrence with
stolen motorcycle and prosecution has not been able to prove that the
petitioner Goerge Stephan was apprehended at the place of occurrence
with the stolen motorcycle.
10. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
trial court holding the petitioner Sufal Horo guilty of offence under
Section 414 is affirmed. However, the judgment of conviction passed by
the learned trial court holding the petitioner Goerge Stephan guilty of
offence under Section 414 is set aside.
11. The offence is said to have taken place in the year 2011. There
is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner Sufal Horo has been
convicted in any other case. The sentence passed by the learned trial is
reduced to the period of one year alongwith fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine he is further directed to undergo S.I. for three months.
The period as already undergone by the petitioner Sufal Horo during trial
is ordered to be set off.
12. The criminal revision application is partly allowed.
13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
