Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 606 (PAT)

Pappu Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-04-15

SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 1. All the above three petitioners are sons of Dani Singh and they have filed this revision application against the judgment dated 5.10.2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in Cri. Appeal No. 113/9 of 1998/1999 confirming the judgment of conviction and reducing the period of sentence passed by Judicial Magistrates 1st Class, Nawada in G.R.Case No. 440 of 1996/Tr. No. 476 of 1998 on 17.9.1998 whereby the petitioners were found guilty under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years- and one years each respectively under each count. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellate Court modified the sentence under both counts for six months each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Narhat P.S. Case No. 23 of 1996 was registered with regard to an occurrence of 23/ 24th March, 1996 under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penai Code in connection of theft in the house of informant Ram Ratan Prasad Singh. The informant identified the accused persons. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and thereafter trial proceeded after framing of charges. 3. The defence of the accused persons was that they are neighbours of the informant and they have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. After considering the entire evidences on record, the Trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced, as stated above. In appeal, the appellate Court also affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentences, as mentioned above. 5. At the outset, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it was a case of false implication in which witnesses have not supported the entire case. So the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners are fit to be set aside. 6. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been opposed by the learned A.P.P. and it has been submitted that the Courts below have analysed the entire evidences and came to the concurrent findings of fact that on the date and time of occurrence, the offences were committed by the petitioners. 6. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been opposed by the learned A.P.P. and it has been submitted that the Courts below have analysed the entire evidences and came to the concurrent findings of fact that on the date and time of occurrence, the offences were committed by the petitioners. So the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Courts below are correct and require no interference by this Court. 7. I have also perused the entire records including the judgments of the Courts below. All the five prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1 Navin Kumar, P.W.2 Achutya Nand Singh, P.W.3 Rinki Kumari, P.W.4 Shaligram Singh and P.W.5 Ram Ratan Prasad Singh, the informant, have supported the prosecution case that in the night of 23/24th of March, 1996 the accused persons entered into the house of the informant and they have stolen away ornaments, clothes, watch etc. worth Rs. 60,000/- and cash of Rs. 5,000/-. The Courts below have mentioned valid reasons for arriving at the conclusion. I am also of the view that the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove the charges against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts. So, I see no reason to differ with the findings of the Courts below which are based on analyses of the facts. Acqordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is maintained. 8. However, on the question of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1996 i.e. about 12 years back and previous conviction has not been brought on the record. The petitioners have remained in custody for a longer period during trial, appeal and revision. As such, no useful purpose will be served if the petitioners are sent to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. So, prayer has been made to modify the sentence of the petitioners and it has been submitted that if the sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by them which may be sufficient for the ends of justice. 9. After considering the entire materials on record, I am in full agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners during trial, appeal and revision, the same will be sufficient for the ends of justice. 9. After considering the entire materials on record, I am in full agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners during trial, appeal and revision, the same will be sufficient for the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentences of the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them which will be sufficient for the ends of justice. 10. In the result, this revision application is dismissed with modification in sentence.