Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 546 (PAT)

Abhay Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-05-02

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1995 whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.7.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-Danapur in Trial No. 899 of 1995 arising from Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 152 of 1990 and sentenced the accused including the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo a further six months imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that while the informant Ramashish Sharma was returning home after withdrawing a sum of Rs. 12,500/- from the Bank that the accused persons intercepted him and robbed him of his belongings. The statement given by the informant gave rise to Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 152 of 1990 registered for offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was instituted against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation. The police submitted charge sheet against the accused and cognizance was taken of the offences. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and hence the matter was put up for trial. The petitioner was identified by the informant in the T.I. Parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh who was examined as P.W. 3. The trial court on the basis of the evidence available on record convicted the accused including the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment on each count and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which the accused were to undergo a sentence of further six months. The judgment and order of the trial court being affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1995, hence this revision. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shantanu Kumar for the State and have perused the records. Although Mr. The judgment and order of the trial court being affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1995, hence this revision. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shantanu Kumar for the State and have perused the records. Although Mr. Rajesh Kumar endeavoured to question the findings of the courts below on the anvil of single identification and in the backdrop of irregularities in holding of the Test Identification Parade but this Court taking into consideration the concurrent findings of the court below is not persuaded to interfere with the same. There is a concurrent finding as to the robbery and the involvement of the petitioner and others. The conviction under Section 392 is based upon the evidence collected and requires no interference. Perusal of the records manifest that of the accused persons while one Lalan Kumar Sharma is stated to have suffered the sentence, one other accused Neeraj Kumar Sharma was discharged and another accused Balmiki Sharma has died. 5. The criminal revision was admitted vide order passed on 14.11.2003 and the petitioner was released on bail. This matter was taken up for consideration on 11.4.2014 when the learned State counsel was asked to seek information as regarding the conduct of the petitioner during the intervening period from the Probation Officer and which has since been received and a report is placed on the record and in which it is submitted that apart from the present case the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and is leading a family life. The intervening period since after the institution of the FIR ranges to more than twenty years and thus the report of the Probation Officer received on 30.4.2014 does certify the conduct of the petitioner that he has not been involved in any other criminal case. The record further manifests that the petitioner has remained in custody for the period 17.9.1990 to 15.3.1991 and thereafter from 6.9.2003 to 14.11.2003 meaning thereby a period of more than eight months. The record further manifests that the petitioner has remained in custody for the period 17.9.1990 to 15.3.1991 and thereafter from 6.9.2003 to 14.11.2003 meaning thereby a period of more than eight months. The passage of time since the alleged occurrence which is about 24 years, the report of the Probation Officer regarding the petitioner not being involved in any other criminal case and considering the incarceration period suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be subserved by modifying the sentence awarded by the court below to the period undergone. 6. This Court thus while upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the offences, punishable under Sections 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code would modify the sentence to the period undergone and since the petitioner is already on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. 7. With the modification in the sentence aforementioned, this criminal revision is dismissed. 8. Let the Lower Court records be returned to the court below forthwith.