Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1150 (JHR)

Sudarshan Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard, Mr. Ramakant Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 829 of 1998 has been affirmed so far as the conviction under Section 411 of IPC is concerned and the petitioner having been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has also been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant after parking his two wheeler had gone to the Education Office and on his return, he found his motorcycle missing. Based on the aforesaid allegations, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 271 of 1998 was instituted. In course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and on his confessional statement, the motorcycle was recovered and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC. After cognizance was taken, charges were framed and thereafter trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW I-Krishna Kumar Prasad was the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that in course of investigation on receiving confidential information, the motorcycle was recovered from - the possession of the petitioner. This witness has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 379/411 of IPC.PW 2-Bahadur Singh is the informant who has stated that he had kept his motorcycle and gone to Education Office and on return he found his rpotorcycle missing which led to institution of an FIR. This witness has stated that on recovery, he had identified the motorcycle in the Police Station and got it released in his favour. PW 3- Ram Lal Ram is a seizure list witness who has denied the recovery from the possession of the petitioner. PW 4 -Raj Kishore Yadav is also a seizure list witness who has stated that the recovery was made in his presence. 5. The learned trial Court after consideration of the- evidence on record had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. PW 4 -Raj Kishore Yadav is also a seizure list witness who has stated that the recovery was made in his presence. 5. The learned trial Court after consideration of the- evidence on record had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2000 in which vide judgment dated 11.02.2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro while the petitioner was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 379 of IPC, but had dismissed the appeal with respect to the challenge made to the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of IPC and also to the sentence. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure list has not been proved as PW 3 has not supported the factum of seizure. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been implicated merely On suspicion and there is no complete evidence on record to suggest the complicity of the petitioner. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the impugned orders. 8. It appears that PW 1 who is the Investigating Officer of the case had categorically stated about the recovery of the motorcycle from the possession of the petitioner which fact has been substantiated by the evidence of PW 4. PW 2 is the informant bf the case who' in his evidence has stated about the release of the motorcycle in his favour on the motorcycle being identified by the informant. The evidence on record thus justifies the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of IPC as the motorcycle was recovered from his possession which fact has been proved by the evidence of PW 1 and which was identified by PW 2, the informant. As has been stated above, PW 4 is a seizure list witness who has also stated that the recovery was made in his presence. 9. In such circumstances therefore, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner so far as Section 411 of IPC is concerned and which has been affirmed in appeal is hereby sustained. 10. As has been stated above, PW 4 is a seizure list witness who has also stated that the recovery was made in his presence. 9. In such circumstances therefore, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner so far as Section 411 of IPC is concerned and which has been affirmed in appeal is hereby sustained. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution since 1998 and he has also for some time remained in custody. Considering the aforesaid facts and the incarceration of the petitioner in custody, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification• in sentence. Revision dismissed.