Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 32 (JHR)

Md. Muktar Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP is present. 2. As this case is pending since the year 2006, same is being disposed of on the basis of the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.3.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2005, by which judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.1.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla in T.R. No. 273 of 2005 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that the informant and other police officials were on patrolling duty on 27.10.2001. They had seen two persons fleeing away and on apprehension they had confessed that they have committed theft in the shop of one Ram Gopal Sahu. On search of the apprehended accused persons, from the possession of the petitioner, one polythene bag was recovered containing some coins and a total sum of Rs. 279/- whereas from the other person, two bunch of old keys were recovered. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No. 704 of 2001 was instituted, in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. In course of investigation, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 5-Geeta Devi did not support the prosecution case and therefore, she was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 1-Satya Narayan Sahu has proved exhibits 1. 2 and 3 and has stated that in the next morning when he went to his shop, he came to know that a theft has been committed and two persons were apprehended and an amount of Rs. 279/- was recovered. PW 2 Munilal Roy is one of the members of the raiding party who has stated about recovery of Rs. 279/- from the possession of the petitioner and two bunch of keys from the possession of the other accused person. PW 3 Birendra Kumar Prasad was also a member of the raiding party. who has supported the prosecution case. PW 4-lshaque Cendulna has stated about two persons apprehended and some recovery made from their possession. 279/- from the possession of the petitioner and two bunch of keys from the possession of the other accused person. PW 3 Birendra Kumar Prasad was also a member of the raiding party. who has supported the prosecution case. PW 4-lshaque Cendulna has stated about two persons apprehended and some recovery made from their possession. PW 6-Ram Gopal Sahu has stated that on 28.10.2001, when he went to his shop, he found the lock broken and bunch of keys as well as two bundle of gunny bags were missing and when he received information about two persons being apprehended had given a written report. which has been marked as Ext-2. PW 7 Md. Anwar is a seizure list witness, who has put his signature in the seizure list and has stated that one knife, two bundles of gunny bags one sabai. two bunch of keys and sum of Rs. 279/ - were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. 5. The evidence of the witnesses thus reveal that a theft was committed in the shop of PW 6-Ram Gopal Sahu and from the possession of petitioner, an amount of Rs. 279/- was recovered. Most of the witnesses including PWs 2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution case with respect to apprehension of the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 279/- from this possession. The seizure list witness has also supported the recovery of the said amount from other articles from the possession of the other accused persons. Thus the offence alleged against the petitioner has sufficiently been proved. which rightly led to his conviction by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, same is hereby sustained. 6. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 2001 and has remained for some time in custody. Considering the aforesaid fact, period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, is modified to the period already undergone. 7. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.