Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 700 (JHR)

Savitri Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001 and 72 of 2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in G. R. Case No. 582 of 1997 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 225A, 225B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were never on duty in the remand home. Learned counsel further submits that at best the petitioners could have been proceeded against departmentally for dereliction of duty as no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel of the petitioners that since the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1997 and have already remained in custody for about a month, some leniency may be shown with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that a First Information Report was instituted by P.W. 5 with the allegation that from Remand Home, Deoghar eight female interns have escaped in the night. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 1 was on duty whereas the petitioner no. 2 was the night watchman. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and, thereafter, trial proceeded. In course of trial the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 225A, 225B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 17.08.2002. 6. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 17.08.2002. 6. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 7. P.W. - 1, Mira Rani Das, P.W. - 2, Indrani Devi, P.W. - 3, Ramaney Prasad and P.W. - 4, Paltu Das have consistently stated that on the date of occurrence both the petitioners were on duty. P.W. - 5, Binoy Kumar, is the informant of the case who was In-charge of the remand home at the relevant point of time. Apart from giving the name of the female interns who had escaped the remand home, this witness has also stated that the petitioners were on duty on the fateful night. P.W. - 5 has further stated that the key of the inner door was with the petitioner no. 1 whereas the key of the outer door was with the petitioner no. 2. P.W. - 7 and P.W. - 8 namely Mani Bhushan Prasad and Baban Kumar are the Investigating Officers of the present case. The witnesses P.W. - 1 to 5 have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioners in helping the inmates of the remand home to escape. These petitioners were admittedly on duty when the incident had taken place and had the keys of the inner as well as the outer door. The place of occurrence has also been proved by the evidence of Investigating Officer. Since there appears to be consistent evidence on record with respect to the act of the petitioners the learned court below had rightly convicted the petitioners. 8. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners out of maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment have remained in custody for a period of one month. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1997. Considering the long pendency of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioners, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 9. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1997. Considering the long pendency of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioners, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.