Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Swarnkar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 7 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 544 of 2015
------
1. Rajesh Swarnkar, Son of Dwarika Prasad Swarankar.
2. Manoj Thathera, Son of Chotu Thathera.
Both resident of Village - Chauthai, Kulhi, Jharia, P.S. -
Jharia, P.O. - Jharia, Dhanbad.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhamendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Poonam Verma, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
------
ORAL ORDER
Order No. 08/Dated : 07th May, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 23.12.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 115 of 2007, whereby and
whereunder the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.05.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Dhanbad in T.R. No. 94 of 2007 arising out of Boragarh
(Jharia) P.S. Case No. 99 of 1997 corresponding to G.R. No.
1276 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners were
held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of
the I.P.C. thereby sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years
and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they
were further directed to undergo S.I. for three months.
3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision in
nutshell is that the informant namely, Raja Ram Singh,
Manager of East Bhagatdih Colliery, Jharia, alleging therein
that on 24.05.1997, when he was on duty in third shift in East
Bhuggatdih Colliery then he received information at about
1:15 A.M. that power shut down had occurred in G.T.-3
feeder between Bhalgora to 9 Pit as unknown thieves had cut
three spare of aluminum conductor and damaged two poles.
The approximately length has been stated to be three
hundred meter and cost of wire was Rs. 12,000/-.
4. On the basis of written report of the informant,
Boragarh (Jharia) P.S. Case No. 99 of 1997 was registered for
the offences under Sections 379 / 411 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, police submitted
charge-sheet on 02.07.1997 under Sections 379 / 411 of the
I.P.C. The charge was framed on 22.06.2002 against the
accused persons for the aforesaid sections.
6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and
after hearing the parties found the petitioners guilty for the
offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I.
for three months.
7. The petitioners have preferred an appeal bearing Cr.
Appeal No. 115 of 2007 before the court of Sessions, wherein
the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the
instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2007.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners without touching
the merits of the case has confined his argument to the point
of quantum of sentence and submitted that during course of
investigation, trial and conviction of the petitioners, they
have remained in custody for about six months. There is
allegation about theft of 266 ft. Aluminum wire alleged to
have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners,
which is worth Rs. 10 - 12 thousand. The petitioners were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years
along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section
411 of the I.P.C. The petitioners were never convicted for any
offence on previous occasion. Hence, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for reduction of sentence to the extent of
imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners in this
case, which will be sufficient punishment as regards nature of
offence committed by them.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has raised no objection as regards sentence
imposed upon the petitioners and argument raised on behalf
of the petitioners.
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial court as well as judgment passed
by the appellate court, it appears that there is concurrent
finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has
been able to conclusively prove the guilt of accused for the
offence punishable under Section 411 of the I.P.C. The finding
of fact of the court below appears to be correct legal and
proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this
revision.
11. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned
admittedly out of two years rigorous imprisonment, he has
sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent
of six months during course of trial and during pendency of
the appeal and this revision.
12. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the
year 1997 and more than 27 years has been passed from the
alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of
trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence about
six months.
13. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest
of justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be
sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them, as
more than 27 years have elapsed and it will amount to
travesty.
14. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is
dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the
extent mentioned above i.e. petitioners are sentenced to go
imprisonment for the period already undergone.
15. Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged
from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be
discharged.
16. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be
sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/-NAFR
