Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 417 (JHR)

Pati Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-28

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. P. C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.1999 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 104 of 1991-92 by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 3063 of 1984 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses of the prosecution are all interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned senior counsel further submits that the gun which was alleged to have been stolen by the petitioner was never recovered which itself falsified the prosecution case. It has been stated that there has been major contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and an alternative argument has put forward by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced considering the fact that the petitioner is facing rigors of prosecution case since the year 1984 and had remained for sometime in custody. 4. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 31.10.1984 the petitioner had gone to the house of the informant and had stolen away the licenced gun of the husband of the informant and had managed to flee away. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation Ratu P.S. Case No. 117 of 1984 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi wherein by judgment dated 20.11.1991 the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced accordingly. 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1991-92 was also dismissed on 25.09.1999. 8. 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1991-92 was also dismissed on 25.09.1999. 8. It appears that the prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of his case. 9. P.W. - 5, Siva Khoren Minz, is the informant herself who had stated that the petitioner had come to her house and started talking with her sister-in-law (P.W. - 1) and had fled away by taking away the gun. 10. P.W. - 1, Sumra Ren Minz, is the sister-in-law of the informant namely Siva Khoren Minz who had stated that the petitioner had come to her and started talking with her. It has also been stated that the petitioner had left but after sometime had come back and had taken the gun from the bed and had fled away. This witness had also stated that the gun belonged to her brother-in-law (P.W. - 4). This witness has also admitted to the fact that the petitioner is related to her. 11. P.W. - 4, Kristo Minz, is the husband of the informant and although he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence but the licenced gun belonged to him. 12. P.W. - 2, Nobel Minz, and P.W. - 3, Sunil Kumar Minz, are the brother-in-law and son of the informant respectively who had also stated about the stealing of the gun by the petitioner and that he managed to flee away. 13. Although the Investigating Officer has not been examined which fact has much been stressed upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner but such non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused prejudice to the defence in view of the consistent evidence of the prosecution which has also proved the place of occurrence as well as the manner of occurrence. Although P. W. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all related to each other but that by itself would not discard their testimony in view of the fact that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 4 do inspire confidence and corroborates each others testimony. 14. In such view of the matter, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The learned appellate court has also recorded a well reasoned order by refusing to interfere in the judgment of conviction and sentence. 14. In such view of the matter, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The learned appellate court has also recorded a well reasoned order by refusing to interfere in the judgment of conviction and sentence. This Court is of the view that since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the judgment and order of conviction, therefore, is also affirmed. 15. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the case was instituted in the year 1984 and the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case for more than three decades. The petitioner has also remained for sometime in custody. The petitioner also seems to be related to the informant party. Considering the said scenario the sentence awarded to the petitioner is thus modified to the period already undergone. 16. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.