Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 144 (JHR)

Rabindra Chaurasia v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-28

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.9.2001 and order of sentence dated 12.9.2001 passed by Sri D.N. Upadhayay, 3rd Special Judge, C.B.1. (AHD) Scam-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1997, by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Sections 393/397 of the Indian Penal Code and considering his age sentenced him to undergo R.1. for 7 years. It was observed by the trial court that the appellant is in jail custody right from (sicdale?) of his arrest- i.e. on 24.8.1996. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was arrested on the spot by the witnesses and the police personnel and he was not granted bail. He has remained in custody and since then he has not released and as such he has suffered more than the sentence. 3. Learned counsel for the State also admits that since the appellant was not granted bail even by the High Court and as such he has remained in full custody for more than 7 years. 4. After hearing the parties and going through. the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a first information report given by the informant, Ashwini Kumar Dandona, Assistant Transport Officer under National Fertilizer Ltd., Panipat, Hariyana on 24.8.1996 at 17 hrs. stating therein that on the same' day at about 5:15 a.m., after completing his work at Ranchi in order to go to Dhanbad he boarded on a rickshaw and was going towards Khadgaraha Bus Stand to catch the bus. When he reached near St. John's High School, his rickshaw was stopped by two young people aged about 20-21 years and after stopping the rickshaw they started looting his briefcase and the airbag. When the informant made protest, one of the accused took out a dagger and assaulted him on his stomach, causing two injuries and (sic-on?) right hand. On his hullah the people gathered and at the same time the police patrolling jeep reached. Seeing the police patrolling jeep both the miscreants started running towards Sadar Hospital, but they were chased and one of the accused was arrested by the police. He disclosed his name to be the accused-appellant, Rabindra Chaurasia son of Kedar Chaurasia, resident of Mohalla-Kishoreganj, District-Ranchi and presently residing in Kishoreganj in the house of one Kripal Vishwakarma. Seeing the police patrolling jeep both the miscreants started running towards Sadar Hospital, but they were chased and one of the accused was arrested by the police. He disclosed his name to be the accused-appellant, Rabindra Chaurasia son of Kedar Chaurasia, resident of Mohalla-Kishoreganj, District-Ranchi and presently residing in Kishoreganj in the house of one Kripal Vishwakarma. He also disclosed the name of his co-accused as Munna Verma son of Binod Kumar Verma, resident of Ratu Road Kabristan. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the police registered a case under Sections 393/397 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant under the aforesaid Sections. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case, committed the same to the court of sessions and lastly the case was tried by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who found the appellant guilty as aforesaid. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was tried by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge were framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was tried by judicial commissioner, Ranchi , who found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid 4A. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. P.W. 1, Sunil Kumar Verma. P.W. 2, Balgovind Ram Verma. P.W. 3, Raj Kumar Chourasia. P.W. 4, Havaldar Verendra Singh. P.W. 5, Ramjee Paswan. P.W. 6, Kameshwar Kumar. P.W. 7, Awadesh Kumar Singh, I.O. of the case. P.W. 8, Mohamad Khalil. P.W. 9, Ramaypurti. P.W. 10, Nandi Lal Sardar. P.W. 11, Dr. Shyam Sundar Narnuali, who proved the injury on the person of the informant and P.W. 12, Deo Nandan Chourasia. 5. It is important to note that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 12 have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. However, the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 is a member of armed force patrolling party. He stated that on hearing Hullah the police stopped the vehicle. 1, 2, 3, 12 have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. However, the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 is a member of armed force patrolling party. He stated that on hearing Hullah the police stopped the vehicle. Seeing the police patrolling jeep the accused person started running towards Sadar Hospital, after giving chura blow on the victim. They chased the accused persons and one of the accused was arrested by the police. He disclosed his name to be the accused-appellant, Rabindra Chaurasia. He also disclosed the name of his co-accused, Munna Verma. He identified the accused in court. He proved the Fardbeyan of the informant, which is as Ext.-1. He also proved formal F.I.R. which is as Ext.-2 and signature of the I.O. which is as Ext.-2/1. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the morning he alongwith his officer-in-charge and Kameshwar Paswan another police officer were on the police jeep: P.W. 5, Ramjee Paswan also supported the version as given by the evidence of P.W. 4 and stated that when he reached near the place of occurrence, who found that two accused persons are assaulting a man and trying to snatch the briefcase. Then, they chased and caught hold of one of them by S.I., Pradeep Kumar and handed over to the Officer-in-charge. He disclosed his name to be the Rabindra Chaurasia. P.W. 6, Kameshwar Kumar also supported the prosecution case and stated that during morning •he was on patrolling duty. When, he alongwith the patrolling party reached near Mission Chowk then they saw two accused persons attempted to loot at the point of dagger then they stopped their jeep. Seeing them, the accused persons started running towards Sadar Hospital. They chased the accused persons and one of the accused was arrested by one of the police personnel, Pradeep Kumar. The injured-informant was subsequently taken to Sadar Hospital for treatment. He had identified the accused as Rabindra Chaurasia in Court. P.W. 7, Awadesh Kumar Singh, stated that he was posted as officer-in-charge at Lower Bazar Police Station. On 24.8.96 he was on patrolling duty alongwith other police personnel and they saw two accused person committing loot at the point of dagger then, they stopped the jeep. Seeing them, the accused persons started running towards Sadar Hospital. P.W. 7, Awadesh Kumar Singh, stated that he was posted as officer-in-charge at Lower Bazar Police Station. On 24.8.96 he was on patrolling duty alongwith other police personnel and they saw two accused person committing loot at the point of dagger then, they stopped the jeep. Seeing them, the accused persons started running towards Sadar Hospital. They chased the accused persons and one of the accused was arrested by" one of the police personnel, Pradeep Kumar, who disclosed his name as Ravindra Kumar Chourasia. The injured-informant was subsequently taken to Sadar Hospital for his treatment. He also recorded the statement of the injured-victim. He proved the fardbeyan recorded in the writing of S.L, Awadhesh Kumar, which is as Ext.1. He also stated that he instituted the case in Lower Bazar Police Station as 106 of 1996. On the basis of the said Fardbeyan he also prepared injury report of the victim. He gave the detailed place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 393 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. 10, Nandi Lal Sardar also supported the prosecution case alongwith P.Ws. 8 & 9. 6. Thus, it is clear that all the witnesses, who were present and chased and caught hold of the accused, Ravindra Kumar Chourasia, who is the appellant in this appeal, have identified them that he was caught red-handed while he was committing road robbery and seeing the police he attempted to run away alongwith his co-accused, but he was arrested on the spot and as such his conviction under Sections 393 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is well founded and requires no interference by this Court. 7. However, since it appears that the appellant is in jail custody right from the date he was arrested i.e. on 24.8.96. and was not granted bail either by the trial court or by the High Court and as such he must have completed the sentence more than 7 years in jail custody and it is hoped that the jail authority must have released him after completing seven years in custody, but he has not been released as yet. The trial court is directed to verify the matter and issue release order immediately, if he is not wanted in any other' case/so 8. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is dismissed.