Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 500 (PAT)

Dilip Jha ® Dilip Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2001-06-28

A.K.SINHA

body2001
Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This revision application has been directed against the order dated 16.2.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Appeal No. 132/99, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner who was convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code by SDJM, Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 1317 of 1996 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The facts relevant to the present case are that on 30.8.1996 the informant hired a jeep bearing No. BRF 2544 and after selling the medicine was returning to Madhubani. He had a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was the sale proceeds of the day and he kept the amount in a bag. On the way the informant got clown from the jeep at Rajendra Chauk for making water and when he was to proceed this petitioner and one Suraj Sah took lift in the jeep and jeep proceeded for Madhubani. On the way the petitioner and his associate assaulted the informant and the driver of the jeep, snatched the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and pushed them from the running jeep. Thereafter, the jeep dashed against a tree. With the help of the villagers the informant and the driver were brought to the Sadar Hospital. Madhubani where the statement of the informant was recorded and a case under Section 394 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and Suraj Sah. In course of the trial the informant, driver and the villagers who helped in bringing both the injured to the hospital were examined besides the doctor and the IO. I find that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below and there does not appear any impropriety much less any illegality in the judgment of the Courts below which may require any interference by this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his submission on the point of sentence only and submitted that the petitioner should have been given benefit of Section 360 of the Cr PC under the provisions of Probation of Offender Act as it was the first offence of the petitioner, although, no such ground has been taken in the petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one year and two months. It is also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one year and two months. Hence, the sentence may be reduced to the extent undergone by the petitioner in custody. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is quite serious in nature, inasmuch, as he caused incised injuries to the informant on his vital part in course of snatching the money. The driver of the Jeep was also assaulted and both of them were pushed from the running jeep. Considering the gravity of the offence I am not inclined to reduce the sentence and I am of the view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is quite justified and does not require any interference. 5. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence without any delay.