Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1736 (JHR)

Nepal Mondal v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2001/141 of 2005 by which the judgment dated 16.02.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamtara in Kundahit P.S. Case No. 69 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 409 of 1990 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution. It has been stated that the wife of the petitioner had earlier instituted a case against the accused persons which was prior to the case instituted by the informant of the present case. Learned counsel submits that merely as a retaliation to the case earlier instituted by the wife of the petitioner. G.R. No. 409 of 1998 was instituted. It has also been stated that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are highly interested witnesses as PW 1 and PW 4 is sister and father of the informant respectively and PW 6 is the informant himself. Learned counsel also put forward an alternative argument that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence may suitably be modified considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution since the year 1998 and had remained for 2 months in custody. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer. 5. It appears from the allegation made in the FIR that the petitioner misrepresenting himself as Agent of Bihar Rajya Khadi Udyog, Patna along with one Chaturvedi Singh who was represented as a Supervisor of the Board had brought some form of Bihar Rajya Khadi Udyog since 1997 and has cheated him of Rs.18,000/-. 5. It appears from the allegation made in the FIR that the petitioner misrepresenting himself as Agent of Bihar Rajya Khadi Udyog, Patna along with one Chaturvedi Singh who was represented as a Supervisor of the Board had brought some form of Bihar Rajya Khadi Udyog since 1997 and has cheated him of Rs.18,000/-. It has also been alleged that a false promise of providing some articles such as, 20 H.P. Machine, four Hauler machine, solar and Sulabh Sachuhalaya and a job to the sister of the informant at Angan Bari Kendra was made by the petitioner, but none of the said articles or any job was provided which ultimately led the informant to institute an FIR which was registered as G.R. No. 409 of 1998. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after framing of charge, cognizance was taken and trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1-Shanti Chakrabarti has stated that in December 1977, the petitioner and one Chaturvedi Singh had come to his residence representing themselves as agent of Bihar Rajya Khadi Gram Udyog. He has also stated that they have installed Gobar Gas Plant in his house and Rs. 600/- was paid to them. He has further stated that on the pretext of providing job to the sister of the informant and of providing certain articles, signatures were taken and an amount of Rs. 18,000/- was taken, but nothing was provided. PW 2-Narayan Chandra Ram has stated about the installation of Gobar Gas Plant in the house of the informant. He has stated that he was also approached by the petitioner and Chaturvedi Singh which he refused. PW 3-Santosh Chakrabarthy has deposed that there was a meeting of Peace Committee in Amba, village wherein Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police had participated. He has further stated that in the meeting, the informant (PW 6) had given a petition mentioning about the act of the petitioner in duping the informant of Rs. 18,000/-. This witness has stated that he had heard about the petitioner and Chaturvedi Singh taking an amount of Rs. 18,000/- on the pretext of providing job as well as some articles. PW 4-Sukumar Chakrabarthy has deposed that the petitioner has come to village Amba and had installed Gobar Gas Plant in several houses. 18,000/-. This witness has stated that he had heard about the petitioner and Chaturvedi Singh taking an amount of Rs. 18,000/- on the pretext of providing job as well as some articles. PW 4-Sukumar Chakrabarthy has deposed that the petitioner has come to village Amba and had installed Gobar Gas Plant in several houses. He has further stated that on the pretext of providing job to her daughter as well as providing other machines, an amount of Rs. 18,000/- was taken away apart from photographs of her daughter arid her matriculation certificate. PW 5-Adhir Karmakar has stated that he was working in the house of the informant and the petitioner and Chaturvedi Singh had cheated the informant of Rs. 18,000/-. PW 6- Parthjeet Chakarbarthy is the informant of the present case who has stated in details of• installation of Gobar Gas Plant as the petitioner representing himself as agent of Bihar Rajya Khadi Udyog along with Chaturvedi Singh who represented himself as Supervisor has taken away Rs. 18,000/- on the pretext of providing job as well as supplying various articles including the diesel machine. This witness has also stated that he has also submitted an application before the S.P. and Dy. S.P. when the Peace Committee meeting was held. PW 7-Umesh Kashyap is the Investigating Officer who has taken the statement of the witnesses and after finding the allegation to be true has submitted charge-sheet which was proved by him and marked as Exhibit 4. 7. The defence had examined DW 1-Uday Shankar Rai who has stated that Chaturvedi Singh had not signed on Exhibit 1. The witnesses have categorically stated about the installation of Gobar Gas Plant in the house of the informant-PW 6 and on the pretext of providing job and supplying some articles, an amount of Rs. 18,000/- apart from some educational certificates and some photographs had been taken away by the petitioner and Chaturvedi Singh. In fact from Exhibit 1, it also appears that the Chaturvedi Singh had given in writing which was signed by him and which had been marked as Exhibit 1. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a plea about the institution of the case prior to the institution of this case by PW 6. In fact from Exhibit 1, it also appears that the Chaturvedi Singh had given in writing which was signed by him and which had been marked as Exhibit 1. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a plea about the institution of the case prior to the institution of this case by PW 6. but as it appears from the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court that final form was submitted and the Investigating Officer had recommended for initiation of prosecution against the wife of the petitioner under Section 182/211 of IPC. On such score therefore, the incident of instituting a case by way of retaliation pales into insignificance. The witnesses thus have consistently stated about the allegations made by PW 6 in the FIR which has also been substantiated by virtue of Exhibit 1. 9. Such facts and circumstances therefore does not entitle the petitioner reconsideration of judgment of conviction which has been passed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara and affirmed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, and the same are hereby sustained. 10. However, with respect to the order of sentence passed against the petitioner of R.I. of two years and six months, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case for the last 2 decades. The petitioner has also remained in custody for about 2 months. Considering the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.