Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 198 (PAT)

Jogendra Sah v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-11

BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH

body2002
Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. In their bid to commit burglary in the residential premises of Dr. M.D. Peacock, while petitioners along with Ram Chhabila. making their good escape, were nabbed, one Mahadeo Koeri made good his escape pursuant to which G.R. 1488 of 1975 was registered against the petitioners and others. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including Police Officer and also those who claimed to have nabbed the petitioners and others. Defence too examined some witnesses ostensibly to counter the allegations attributed to them, and the trial court placing reliance on the testimony of the witnesses, examined at trial rendered verdict of guilt finding the petitioners guilty under Sections 457/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. It is apt to discuss that Ram Chhabila. put on trial, confessed his guilt and on his pleading of guilt, he has convicted under Section 457/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to a term of one year. 2. Aggrieved petitioners challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court and preferred Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1980. which too was dismissed with modification in sentence, as the sentence was reduced to a term of nine months by the lower appellate Court. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have discussed the evidence placed on record in details, narration of which would be merely a repetition and hence, I refrain myself from such narrations. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have found the witnesses worthy of reliance and. as has been discussed, there has been concurrent finding of both the courts below both on the point of finding of guilt and also the sentence. 3. Contention raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioners was that since this application was admitted merely for hearing on the point of sentence. they have no case to argue the case on merit, yet. this fact cannot be lost sight of, while considering the propriety of the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, that the prosecution was launched against them in the year 1975 about 26 years back and the petitioners have faced the trauma of protracted litigation for about 26 years. Yet. they have no case to argue the case on merit, yet. this fact cannot be lost sight of, while considering the propriety of the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, that the prosecution was launched against them in the year 1975 about 26 years back and the petitioners have faced the trauma of protracted litigation for about 26 years. Yet. it is urged that finding the prosecution version to be true on face value, there has been no accusation about any theft having been committed in the hose of Dr. Peakcok, and that apart. there has been no accusation against the petitioner about they having been noticed breaking the lock of the house and on these premises, it is sought to be urged that the petitioners have remained in custody for about 38 days and hence, a lenient view of the matter can be taken by the Court on the totality of the circumstances placed on record. 4. On consideration of the findings recorded by the trial court and also submissions canvassed at Bar. I feel that justice would be met. if sentence imposed against the petitioners is reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail custody and. in addition. they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- (seven hundred) each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. The amount of fine must be deposited within two months of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. With the modification in sentence to the extent indicated above, this application is dismissed.