Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 515 (JHR)

Sobrati Mian v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Keshari learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.01.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 64 of 1987, 72 of 1987 and 80 of 1987 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.04.1987 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 170 of 1984, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years, has been affirmed. 3. An F.I.R. was instituted on the allegation that on 17.05.1983 in the night while the informant and his other relatives were sleeping in the verandah of the house, there was a cry of alarm from the parents and saw 10-12 persons on the verandah. Some persons were identified by the informant. It is also alleged that after assaulting his parents, the miscreants committed dacoity and had taken away the articles worth Rs. 6,000/-containing household articles, ornaments and cash. The allegation mentioned above led to institution of Pakuria P.S. Case No. 13 of 1983 in which charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other accused persons. After the case was committed to the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pakur, charge was framed and after conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted vide the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.04.1987 for the offence punishable u/s 395 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to R.I. for 6 years. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur vide judgment dated 18.01.2001. 4. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. It has further been submitted that the conviction is based upon the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 6 who claimed themselves to have identified the petitioner who have committed dacoity in their house. P.W. 1, 2 and 6 are all related and therefore their evidence needs to be discarded. Learned counsel also submits that the identification of the petitioner by P.W. 1, 2 and 6 is insignificant in view of the fact that they were identified in the light of the lantern and the identification of the petitioner itself becomes doubtful. P.W. 1, 2 and 6 are all related and therefore their evidence needs to be discarded. Learned counsel also submits that the identification of the petitioner by P.W. 1, 2 and 6 is insignificant in view of the fact that they were identified in the light of the lantern and the identification of the petitioner itself becomes doubtful. Apart from the said fact P.W. 1, 2 and 6 all are related and interested witnesses and therefore the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charge u/s 395 I.P.C. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. It appears from perusal of the lower court records that 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Md. Allaudin Mina, who is the informant, P.W. 2 is Md. Mainuddin Mian and PW. 6 is Kalimullah Ansari. It further appears that after the petitioner was arrested, he was put on Test Identification Parade and he was identified by P.W. 1, 2 and 6 as one of the persons who had taken part in the commission of dacoity. The evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 6 is clear, transparent and consistent with respect to the identification of the petitioner and merely because P.W. 1, 2 and 6 are related to each other, their testimony cannot be discarded. The Test Identification Parade has already been brought on record which has been marked as Ext. 4 series. Apart from the identification in the Test Identification Parade, P.W. 1, 2 and 6 has also identified the petitioner in the dock. P.W. 7 Sri R.N.P. Singh was the Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted Test Identification Parade. P.W. 8 is the mother of the informant, namely, Shahiddan Bibi who had stated about the injury suffered by her. P.W. 3 is Doctor D.P. Keshri who had examined the parents of the informant, which is evident from the evidence of prosecution which had been brought on record. In view of the aforesaid fact, the prosecution has established the manner of occurrence and the participation of the petitioner in commission of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner and others and sentenced them accordingly. On proper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. On proper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 6-A. Since no infirmity or illegality could be brought forward with respect to the impugned judgments under challenge, this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the petitioner, which has also been affirmed in appeal. This application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.