) Munna Toppo v. The State of Bihar
Case Details
Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2000 (R) (Against the Judgment dated 4.9.1997 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1994) Munna Toppo ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ...… Opposite Party -------- For the Petitioner For the State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. K. K. Mishra, A.P.P. PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ By Court This Court was informed that learned counsel for the petitioner had died. Notice was issued by the Court to the petitioner informing him about the death of his counsel, but the notice returned unserved as the addressee was not found. Accordingly, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari agreed to assist the Court amicus curiae. Heard learned amicus curiae appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 4.9.1997 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1994, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 3.10.1994, passed by Sri Shahid Khan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, in G.R No. 1268 of 1993 / Trial No.272 of 1994, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years for the same, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the case was instituted against the petitioner for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the written report of one Baleshwar Prasad Yadav, who was going on a scooter. The said scooter was snatched away by one Arjun Mahto and one unknown person on the point of pistol. On the basis of the written report given by the informant, Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No. 203 of 1993 was instituted for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was taken up. It appears that the petitioner was apprehended with the said scooter and Section 411 of the I.P.C. was also added. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the I.P.C., and the petitioner was ultimately, put to trial. 4. In course of the trial, five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution including the informant, who was examined as P.W.4. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the Udit Kishore and Arun Kumar Agrawal respectively, who have deposed about the recovery of the stolen scooter and other belongings from the possession of the petitioner in their presence. P.W.3 is the A.S.I of Police, who had apprehended the petitioner with the stolen scooter and P.W.5 is the I.O of the case. The F.I.R. and the seizure list were also proved in the case. 5. The record shows that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have fully supported the case about the seizure of the stolen articles from the petitioner and P.W.4, Baleshwar Yadav has identified the stolen articles, recovered from the petitioner. The Trial Court below, on the basis of the evidence on record, did not find the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, but found him guilty for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him for the same, which was maintained even by the learned Appellate Court below. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts, and in the facts of this case, the petitioner ought to have given the benefit of doubt. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned amicus curiae that it was found at the time of admission of this revision application, that the petitioner was suffering from mental illness and was also admitted in RINPASS for his treatment, and the Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below shows that petitioner has remained in custody for about nine months. Learned amicus curiae accordingly, submitted that in any event, the sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone, in view of the mitigating circumstance, i.e., the mental illness of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and the seizure of the stolen articles from the petitioner was also proved by the independent witnesses. The Police Officer apprehending the petitioner with the stolen articles and the I.O of the case have also supported the case. The informant has identified his stolen articles in the T.I. Parade. Learned counsel for the State, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. After having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case. The stolen articles recovered from the petitioner have also been identified and returned to the informant. The seizure of the stolen articles has also been supported by the independent witnesses. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 9. However, I find force in the submission of the learned amicus curiae, that there is a mitigating circumstance, inasmuch as, the petitioner was found to be mentally ill. The order dated 04.02.2000 passed by this Court in the admission stage, shows that the documents were brought on record to show that the petitioner was suffering from mental illness, for which, he was admitted in RINPAS, Kanke, due to which, there was some delay in filing the revision application, which was condoned. The Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below also shows that the petitioner has remained in custody for about nine months. 10. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent for the period already undergone. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed by both the Courts below, are hereby, set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 11. This application is accordingly, dismissed with the modification in the sentence as above. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 20th September 2013 N.A.F.R/ BS-