Jharkhand High Court
Abid Raja vs The State Jharkhand on 19 September, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 548 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2017
passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-
VI, Ranchi in connection with S.T. Case No. 74/2015, arising out of Khelari
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2012, Corresponding to G. R. No. 6089 of 2012]
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 548 of 2017
1. Abid Raja, S/o Aasique Rezwe, R/o Hutaw, P.O & P.S. Macluskyganj,
District-Ranchi
2. Sunny Saw, S/o Gaya Saw, R/o Kamta Chandwa, P.O & P.S. Chandwa,
District-Latehar
... Appellants
-Versus-
The State Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----------
For the Appellants : M/s. Nilesh Kumar Advocate
For the State : M/s. P. K. Chatterjee. Spl. P.P.
---------
C.A.V. On 09.05.2024 Pronounced on 19.09.2024
1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. P. K. Chatterjee learned Spl .P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 21.02.2017 passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw,
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in connection with
S.T. Case No. 74/2015, arising out of Khelari P.S. Case No. 95 of 2012,
Corresponding to G. R. No. 6089 of 2012, holding the appellants guilty
of offence under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentencing them to undergo R.I for 2 years alongwith a fine of rupees
10,000/- each for the offence under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo
S.I. for six months.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement
of the informant Binay Kumar, officer-in-charge of Khelari police station
alleging therein that on 09.11.2012 at about 06:20 A.M., on the basis of
confidential information, he intercepted a truck bearing registration no.
JH-01-Y-5218 and seized 13 tons of illegal coal loaded on it. The
appellants were the occupants of the seized truck and they were
apprehended at the spot. They did not produce any documents to show
that the seized coal was transported on the basis of legal documents.
Seizure list was prepared at the spot.
4. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 413/
414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read
over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral
and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the
record, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants under sections 413/
34 of the Indian Penal Code but held them guilty for the offence under
sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them
accordingly.
6. From the perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution,
it appears that Gulzar Ansari P.W.1 who is one of the seizure witnesses
has been declared hostile. However, he has identified his signature on the
seizure list which is Ext.- 1.
Binay Kumar P.W.2 who is the informant of this case, has
supported the prosecution case as stated in his self-statement. He has
stated that on 09.11.2012 at about 5:30 A.M, on the basis of confidential
information he intercepted a truck bearing registration no. JH-01-Y-5218
loaded with 13 tons of coal. He has further stated that both the petitioners
were trying to flee away from the place of occurrence but they were
apprehended. He has further stated that he has prepared the seizure list at
the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list which has been
marked as Ext.- 1/1. He has also proved his self-statement which is Ext.-
2. He has identified the appellant Sunny Saw who was present in the
dock and has claimed to identify the appellant Abid Raja.
This witness in his cross-examination has stated that there was no
theft reported relating to theft of the seized coal as the apprehended
appellants did not produce any documents of transportation of coal, this
case was registered.
7. Rohit Kumar Yadav P.W.3 has supported the prosecution case and
has stated that on 09.11.2012 between 06:00 to 6:30 A.M, on the basis of
confidential information, a truck bearing registration No. JH-01-Y-5218
was intercepted and the appellants who were the occupants of the truck
attempted to flee but they were apprehended. They disclosed their name
as Sunny Saw and Abid Raja. On search 13 tons of coal was found
loaded on the sezied truck. He has claimed to identify the appellants in
the dock. In his cross examination he has stated that Azim Ansari one of
the co-accused who had faced trial and acquitted by the learned trial court
was not apprehended at the spot.
8. Shiv Narayan Sahu P.W.4 is the investigating officer of this case.
He has proved the place of occurrence which is a place near Khelari
Bijupara near Kabristan at Hutapmore. He has given vivid description of
the place of occurrence. He has stated in his cross-examination that he
had inquired about the seized coal. There was no theft report with regard
to the seized coal.
From the perusal of the seizure list Ext.-. 1/1, it appears that one
Gulzar Ansari has admitted his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-
1. The appellants have also endorsed their signature on the seizure list. It
further reflects that on 09.11.2012 at about 06:30, A.M. truck bearing
registration. No. JH-01-Y-5218 was intercepted and on search 13 tons of
coal was recovered.
9. The informant Binay Kumar P.W.2 as well as Rohit Kumar Yadav
P.W.3 have supported the prosecution case and have stated that on
09.11.2012, a truck bearing registration no. JH-01-Y-5218 was seized and
13 tons of illegal coal was found loaded on it. Seizure list was prepared.
The prosecution has proved the seizure list. The informant Binay
Kumar P.W.2 and Rohit Kumar Yadav P.W.3 have not been cross
examined on the point of seizure of 13 tons of coal from the seized truck.
Both these appellants were arrested at the spot. The prosecution witnesses
have claimed to identify the appellants in the dock.
10. In view of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is
corroborated by the seizure list Ext.-.1/1., I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants for the
offence under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all
reasonable doubt.
11. The learned trial court, has rightly held them guilty under these
sections, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is proportionate
to the gravity of the offence and does not require any interference.
12. This appeal is dismissed.
13. The appellants are on bail, the learned trial court is directed to take
them into custody to serve the remaining sentence forthwith.
14. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated:- 19.09.2024
Saurabh/ NAFR
