Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1144 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1995 by learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1995 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 508 of 1991, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Cod and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, has been affirmed while conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant was coming to Daltonganj by a passenger train and while he was standing at Kajri Railway Station, he was robbed by two criminals. It is alleged that both the criminals began to flee away, after looting the informant but the informant-Paramjeet caught hold both the criminals and there was scuffle between them and they fell down in the ditch. It is alleged that on Hulla, the petitioner was apprehended and from the possession of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1947/-, one knife and one loaded country made pistol was recovered. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No.508 of 1991 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and with respect to the possession of Firearm, a FIR was instituted under the Arms Act. Investigation culminated in submission of the charge-sheet and cognizance was taken after framing of charge, thereafter, trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is Saligarm Pathak, who did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, he was declared hostile. P.W.2-Paramjeet Singh is the informant, who has stated that he was looted by the miscreants at Kajri Railway Station and when he caught two miscreants, there was scuffle between them as a result of which, they fell into ditch. He has deposed that the petitioner was subsequently apprehended and several incriminating articles were recovered from his possession. P.W.3-Brajesh Kumar Sinha is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has stated that when he went to Kajri Railway Station, he found the petitioner was sitting. He has deposed that the petitioner was subsequently apprehended and several incriminating articles were recovered from his possession. P.W.3-Brajesh Kumar Sinha is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has stated that when he went to Kajri Railway Station, he found the petitioner was sitting. He has also deposed that the materials were kept in a room, which included loaded country made pistol and two cartridges and Rs.1947/- in cash. 6. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case without all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, vide order dated 22.11.1995 for the offences under Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.1995, the petitioner preferred an Appeal being Cr. Appeal No.139 of 1995, which however, was dismissed by learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj on 07.02.2002, by upholding the conviction under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that several material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that seizure itself had not been proved as the seizure list witness had turned hostile. It has also been stated that Booking Clerk namely, Narayan Rai with whom, seized articles were kept was also not examined by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of five months and, therefore, this Court may incline to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and the period of sentence imposed by the trial court, be suitably modified. 8. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that it has categorically been stated about the petitioner, being apprehended while he was trying to snatch the belonging of the informant and from his possession, incriminating articles including Firearm were recovered. 8. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that it has categorically been stated about the petitioner, being apprehended while he was trying to snatch the belonging of the informant and from his possession, incriminating articles including Firearm were recovered. Although it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are discrepancies in the statement of P.Ws.2 and 3, but as would appear, the version given by P.W.2 has sufficiently been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, as P.W.3 had reached Kajri Railway Station after being informed about the incident and had thereafter seized the articles, which were kept in a room. Such circumstances, have rightly been considered by the learned trial court, while convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, which was consequently affirmed in Appeal. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment passed against the petitioner by the learned trial court and its affirmation in appeal is, hereby, sustained. 11. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it seems that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1991 and has also remained for about five months in custody. Considering the long period of the case, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, is modified to the period already undergone. 12. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner.