Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1891 (JHR)

Ramesh Thakur v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., is present. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 15.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.), Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2004 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 103 of 1998 convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 386 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each sections has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner no. 1 was alleged to have taken away the moped of the informant for its repairing in his shop. It is alleged that after two hours the petitioner no. 1 had informed the informant that moped had been seized by the police as some arms were recovered and the police were searching for the owner of the moped. It is alleged that on such threat the informant was cheated Rs. 20,000/-. It is alleged that again the accused had extorted Rs. 1,00,000/- by putting him in fear of death. It has been stated that the informant is an Asthma patient and is a widower. He has further alleged that on the threat of committing the murder of his son an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was taken from him. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation G. R. Case No. 103 of 1998 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed under Sections 420, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Alok Kumar Sinha, had stated that the informant had disclosed to him that he needed Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the accused as per the threat meted out to the informant. This witness had stated that the accused had taken an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. He has further stated that the money was demanded in his presence. 7. P.W.-2, Rakesh Kumar, had deposed that the incident of demand was disclosed to him by the informant and P.W.-1. He has further stated that subsequent demand made by the accused was in his presence. 3,50,000/-. He has further stated that the money was demanded in his presence. 7. P.W.-2, Rakesh Kumar, had deposed that the incident of demand was disclosed to him by the informant and P.W.-1. He has further stated that subsequent demand made by the accused was in his presence. 8. P.W.-3, Anirudh Prasad, is the informant who had stated that the petitioner no. 1 is a mechanic who in August, 1997 had taken the moped of the informant for repairing. He has further stated that after half an hour the petitioner no. 1 had telephoned the informant and disclosed that the moped has been seized by the police and due to recovery of fire arms the police was searching for the owner of the moped. He has further stated that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was delivered to petitioner no. 2 after which the moped was returned. He has further stated that there was a further demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the fear of putting the informant to threat of death. He has stated that money was delivered in 2/3 instalments. This witness had deposed that Rs. 3,50,000/- was taken from him by putting him in fear of death. 9. P.W.-4, Ram Sidheshwar Azad, was the Investigating Officer who had investigated the place of occurrence had taken the statement of the witnesses and after finding the allegation to be true had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. 10. P.W.-5, R. V. Toppo, the Manager of State Bank of India had stated that the receipts issued by the Bank showed withdrawal of money by the informant from his own account on several occasions. This witness had proved the receipts which were marked as Exhibit-2. 11. P.W.-6, Rajendra Pd. Verma, was an employee of United Bank of India who had proved the receipts marked as Exhibit-3. 12. P.W.-7, Dr. Durga Bhagat, is a retired Medical Officer who had treated the informant as he was suffering from depression. 13. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the witnesses are not clear with respect to the demand allegedly made by the petitioners. 12. P.W.-7, Dr. Durga Bhagat, is a retired Medical Officer who had treated the informant as he was suffering from depression. 13. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the witnesses are not clear with respect to the demand allegedly made by the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the conviction of the petitioners is based on the evidence of P.W.-5 and merely because the informant had withdrawn some amount from his bank account and in absence of the chain of circumstances being complete the petitioners could not have been convicted for the offence under Sections 386, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 15. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that the demand of money from the informant was made in presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 which fact has been supported by them. Thus the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 reveal that there was a demand made by the petitioners from the informant which was met and withdrawals made by the informant from the bank and which has been certified by the evidence of P.W.-5 complete the chain of circumstance to the effect that only to fulfil the illegal demand made by the petitioners the amount was withdrawn from the bank and handed over to the petitioners. The learned trial court had, therefore, rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W.-5 apart from the other witnesses while convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 386, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is, hereby, sustained. 17. However, as regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors the prosecution case since the year 1998. The petitioner no. 1 has remained in custody for a period of six months and the petitioner no. 2 has remained in custody for a period of about four and half months. The sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners appears to be harsh and accordingly the sentence is reduced from three years imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment in each of the sections and which are to run concurrently. 2 has remained in custody for a period of about four and half months. The sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners appears to be harsh and accordingly the sentence is reduced from three years imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment in each of the sections and which are to run concurrently. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the leaned trial court immediately and forthwith so as to undergo the rest part of the modified sentence imposed upon them. 18. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.