Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2122 (JHR)

Raju Turi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned APP for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.02.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in G.R. Case No. 173 of 1999 (T.R. No. 130 of 2008), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to R.I. for 02 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 420 I.P.C. has been affirmed. 3. The F.I.R. reveals that on 07.07.1999, the informant and his associates Patras Bada went to Tamra Kumhar Toli on his Hero Honda motorcycle to the house of Jainath Turi. It has been alleged that earlier on 07.04.1999 Jainath Turi and his sons had taken an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from Patras Bada on the allurement that the money will be doubled. It has been alleged that when it was not returned Patras Bada and the informant demanded the money but they had threatened. On 07.07.1999 the petitioner had taken the motorcycle of the informant but he did not return and on 08.09.1999 the informant and others had apprehended Jainath Turi and Ramdhari Turi as they had begun to flee away and thereafter instituted an F.I.R. After Simdega P.S. Case No. 55 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner and others, investigation was conducted which resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 420 and 120B I.P.C. to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial Jainath Turi had died and the prosecution evidence was closed as the rest accused persons had absconded. Subsequently two persons were later on remanded and the case of other accused persons were separated. Subsequently the petitioner was remanded and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 5. In course of trial 08 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Subsequently two persons were later on remanded and the case of other accused persons were separated. Subsequently the petitioner was remanded and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 5. In course of trial 08 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1, Samir Kumar Sah is a hearsay witness who has stated that on receiving the information about cheating committed by the accused persons he had gone with the others and had apprehended Jainath Turi and Ramdhani Turi. PW-2, Abhay Kumar Akhouri, had stated that he had come to know about the occurrence from the informant. This witness had stated that he was also one of the persons who had caught Jainath Turi while they were trying to flee away. PW-3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and therefore they were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-5, Ranjeet Singh is the informant of this case, who has stated that on 07.04.1999 Jainath Turi and his three sons had taken Rs. 10,000/- from Patras Bada on the pretext that the amount will be doubled. He has stated that when the amount was not returned, this witness along with Abhay Kumar Akhouri, Samir Kumar Sah and Patras Bada had gone to Tamra on a motorcycle. He has stated that the petitioner took the motorcycle on the pretext of bringing the money but he did not return. He has stated that on 08.07.1999 they again went to the said place and when Jainath Turi and others were fleeing away they were caught and were subsequently brought to Simdega P.S. This witness has proved the written report, which has been marked as Ext. 1. In cross examination he has stated that money was not given in his presence. He has further deposed that the motorcycle was received by him after its recovery by Simdega P.S. PW-6 Zakirul Hasan has stated that on 09.07.1999 at about 1 p.m. while he was sitting in his shop at Kolebira he saw the police apprehending one person along with a motorcycle. He has stated that the said person disclosed his identity as Raju Turi (petitioner). This witness has signed the seizure list marked as Ext. 2. PW-7, Shankar Vishwakarma is also a seizure list witness who has supported seizure of the Hero Honda motorcycle. PW-8 Patras Bada is the victim of the case, who has supported taking of amount of Rs. He has stated that the said person disclosed his identity as Raju Turi (petitioner). This witness has signed the seizure list marked as Ext. 2. PW-7, Shankar Vishwakarma is also a seizure list witness who has supported seizure of the Hero Honda motorcycle. PW-8 Patras Bada is the victim of the case, who has supported taking of amount of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused persons on the pretext of doubling the money. He has stated that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given by PW-5 to purchase electrical equipment. The accused persons avoided making payment for three months and lastly this witness has stated that PW-5 and others had gone to the house of the accused on 08.07.1999 and the petitioner on the pretext of bringing the money had taken away the motorcycle. He has also supported the fact about apprehending Ramdhani Turi and his father and handing them over to the police. This witness has stated that he was working under PW-5 since the year 1996. 6. It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that no complaint was ever made by Patras Bada with respect to the alleged allurement made by the accused persons forcing him to part with an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that the motorcycle was voluntarily given to the petitioner by PW-5 and therefore it is incorrect to say that the petitioner on the pretext of bringing the money had taken away the motorcycle. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated on account of a dispute with PW-5 regarding supply of labour. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. 7. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. It appears from the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the pretext of getting it doubled was taken from PW-8 and the same was not returned for a period of three months which subsequently led to the second part of the occurrence by which on the pretext of bringing the said amount, the petitioner had taken away the motorcycle which was subsequently apprehended by the police after a few days. The petitioner was also a member of the group which had allured PW-8 to part with Rs. 10,000/- for getting it doubled. The petitioner was also a member of the group which had allured PW-8 to part with Rs. 10,000/- for getting it doubled. PW-5 is the informant and as has been stated by PW-8 he was working under PW-5 and it was PW-5 who had given an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to PW-8 for purchasing electrical equipment. The evidence of PW-5 and PW-8 has also been supported by other witnesses barring PW-3 and PW-4. Although the complaint was made by PW-8 who was the victim, but the fact remains that since the amount actually belonged to PW-5 and the loss was caused to PW-5 therefore PW-5 had rightly instituted the F.I.R. against the accused persons. PW-8 was merely a custodian of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was given to him by PW-5 for purchase of electrical equipment and since PW-5 was the aggrieved person, the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no complaint had been made by PW-8 gets negated. So far as, non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, it appears that the place of occurrence has sufficiently been proved by the documents and there being corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution barring PW-3 and PW-4 such non-examination has not caused prejudice to the defence. 9. The defence has tried to take a plea regarding false implication on account of dispute for supply of labour but no concrete evidence has been brought forward by the defence to substantiate the said contention. Seizure list also supports the factum of seizure of the Hero Honda motorcycle from the possession of the petitioner. The delay in institution of the F.I.R. has also been sufficiently explained and in view of the supportive evidence of the witnesses barring PW-3 and PW-4, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 420 and 120B I.P.C. which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court. The same is hereby sustained. 10. However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been facing rigours of the criminal case since the year 1999 and has also remained in custody for some time. On consideration of the said facts, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. However with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been facing rigours of the criminal case since the year 1999 and has also remained in custody for some time. On consideration of the said facts, the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the said modification shall not affect the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- as directed by the learned trial court which shall be deposited by the petitioner immediately and forthwith. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Appeal dismissed.