The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2015 ------ Bablu Ansari, son of Late Abdul Ansari, resident of Village – Purandih, P.O. & P.S. – Netarhat, District - Latehar. The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ------ ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 13.02.2024 Pronounced On 29.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar in G.R. No. 658 of 2012 / T.R. No. 293 of 2014, has been dismissed, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar in G.R. No. 658 of 2012 / T.R. No. 293 of 2014 corresponding to Garu P.S. Case No. 22 of 2022, registered for the offence under Section 363A of the I.P.C., whereby and whereunder the present petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant / victim girl was studying in Class-VI and on allurement of the present petitioner to provide her job in Delhi for Rs. 6,000/- per month and additional amount of Rs. 2 Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2015 25,000/- when she will come back from Delhi. The victim left her house on 01.12.2012 without informing her family members with two other girls namely, Anukampa Telra and Seema Thetiyo. As per plan set out by the present petitioner, all three girls went to Daltonganj by bus. It is alleged that after some time, informant changed her mind, but present petitioner threatened her and when they reached near Garu Police Station, some police personnel also boarded in the bus and started making enquiry with the passengers, then she disclosed everything to the police and present petitioner was apprehended. 4. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 363A of the I.P.C. and Section 23 & 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner was charged with the offence and tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar, who after conclusion of trial found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 363 instead of Section 363A I.P.C. and in view of provision of Section 222 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was confirmed by the appellate court and has been assailed in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment of concerned trial court and the appellate court has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that out of three years imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone 2‰ years’ imprisonment during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has no criminal background. The victim has also been settled in her life and the petitioner is also leading a 3 Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2015 peaceful life in righteous manner, as such, the petitioner has been adequately punished for the offences committed by him. Under such circumstances, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent findings of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. and there is direct evidence against him as he enticed minor girl and took her away from the custody of her lawful guardian without their consent and he was apprehended on the way by the police. The finding of the courts below appear to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 9. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned admittedly out of three years rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of 2 ‰ years during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. 10. It appears that on the date of alleged commission of crime, petitioner was aged about 28 years and more than 11 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period 4 Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2015 and also served sentence about 2 ‰ years. He has settled in his life and no further criminal record has been brought on record against him. So far circumstances of the victim is concerned, she has also settled in her life, although on the date of occurrence her age was 13 years. 11. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of rehabilitation and reformation of the petitioner, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 12. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 13. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 14. Let the copy of this judgment along with L.C.R. be sent to the concerned court forthwith. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 29/02/2024 Sunil/-NAFR