Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1064 (JHR)

Vikas Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP for the State is present. Since this case is pending since the year 2005, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2001 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chatra, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.09.2001 passed in G.R. Case No.233 of 1994 (T.R. No.61 of 2001) by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 380 and 457 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year on both the counts, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a theft was committed in the house of the informant. It is alleged that the informant had came to know from his nephew that a theft had been committed in his house and it had further been informed to him that on several times, the petitioner had visited near the house and therefore it was suspected that the petitioner was involved in the theft so committed. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Itkhori P.S. Case No. 32 of 1994 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 457/380 of the I.P.C. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of charges, trial proceeded. 4. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case, the petitioner was convicted u/s 457/380 I.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra vide judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2001 and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year on each counts. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2001 which however was dismissed by earned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chatra vide judgment dated 15.10.2004. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses in support of its case. PW 1, Siya Ram Singh, who is the nephew of the informant, has stated that the incident had taken place on 16.04.1994 at 11.30 in the night. This witness has also stated that he had identified the petitioner. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses in support of its case. PW 1, Siya Ram Singh, who is the nephew of the informant, has stated that the incident had taken place on 16.04.1994 at 11.30 in the night. This witness has also stated that he had identified the petitioner. PW 2 Afinta Devi has stated that when she was sleeping inside the house, she had seen the petitioner and one Brahmadeo Singh in the courtyard whereas others thieves had entered into the house and had taken away house hold articles. PW 3 Surendra Singh, has stated that he was the driver in the cooperative bank of Hazaribag and on the date of incident when he was returning from Hazaribag he saw in the headlight of the vehicle that the petitioner and 4-5 persons were coming from the house of the informant. This witness had recognized Brahmadeo Singh and on being enquired from Brahmadeo Singh, the petitioner had threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to go away silently. PW 4 Sudeshwar Singh, who is the informant, has stated that on the date of incident he was at Gangpar and he was informed about the incident by his nephew (PW 1). PW 5 is a formal witness. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that several witnesses had seen the petitioner who was also a part of the gang who had committed theft in the house of the informant. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have categorically stated about the presence of the petitioner and the circumstances brought forward by PW 3 appears to be corroborating what has been stated by PW 1 and PW 2. Thus identification of the petitioner in committing theft in the house of the informant has been established by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. Such circumstances have rightly been considered by learned trial court while convicting and sentence the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 457 and 380 I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.09.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in appeal. 6. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner is hereby sustained. 6. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner is hereby sustained. However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1994 and the petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable period. Such circumstance therefore definitely entitles the petitioner to reduction in the period of sentence imposed upon him. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 7. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner.