Shakil Ansari @ Shakhil Ahmad, Son of Nejar Ansari @ Nejar Ahmad, resident of v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 386 of 2016 Shakil Ansari @ Shakhil Ahmad, Son of Nejar Ansari @ Nejar Ahmad, resident of village- Juriya, P.O, P.S & District- Lohardaga. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP --- 05/19.09.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For setting aside judgement dated 27.01.2016 passed by Sri Pravas Kumar singh, Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal no. 59/2015 whereby & whereunder Judgement of conviction & Sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by Sri Ranjit kumar, C.J.M., Lohardga in G.R. case no. 31/2009 out of Lohardaga P.S. case no. 9/2009 has been sustained. And Petitioners further prays for setting aside order dated 30.04.15 passed by Sri Ranjeet Kumar, C.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. Case No. 31/09 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case no. 9/09 whereby & whereunder petitioner was convicted for the offence U/S 467, 468, 414, 472/120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. along with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 3 months." 3. From the perusal of the order dated 17.05.2016, it is apparent that this revision petition has been admitted for final hearing only limited to the question of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments on the point of sentence, has submitted that a counter- affidavit has been filed by the State mentioning that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 2 years and 3 days out of the total period of 3 years as sentenced by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the incident is of the year 2009 and more than 15 years has elapsed from the date of the incident. The conviction of the petitioner was recorded vide judgment dated 30.04.2015. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is of advanced age as is apparent from the trial court judgement and as per the counter-affidavit filed by the State, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. The learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner be modified. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner is found to be the main accused on the basis of whose confessional statement, the other persons were also made accused and the petitioner was operating the gang of motorcycle lifters. He submits that there has been recovery of motorcycle from the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons. 7. The learned counsel for the State further submits that so far as section 467 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life and it has also been provided that there could be imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and the convict shall also be liable for fine. He submits that although no minimum sentence as such has been prescribed, but the maximum punishment is for life and considering the nature of allegation proved against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for any sympathetic view of this Court. 8. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner faced the criminal trial along with co-accused on the 2 basis of statement of one Umesh Kumar Thakur, the then officer in- charge of Lohardaga Police Station on 20.01.2009 at 3.00 p.m. In his written statement, the officer in-charge of Lohardaga Police Station stated that when he received secret information about involvement of the petitioner for commission of theft and sale of motorcycle, he proceeded to verify the matter after entering the Sanha. When the petitioner was arrested, on interrogation he confessed before the police outside the house and admitted to have indulged other co-accused for commission of theft of motorcycle. He disclosed the name of other co- accused persons who were indulged in commission of theft and sale of motorcycle after making forged papers. On the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, his house was searched in presence of independent witnesses and three splendor plus motorcycles and two owner book, rubber stamp seal of D.T.O. Gumla, Bokaro, Palamu, Garhwa, Jamshedpur and a Chinese Mobile were recovered. The details of the motorcycle were also mentioned. The seizure list was prepared and on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, the house of the co-accused was raided and recoveries were made from the possession of the other co-accused also. 9. This Court finds that after trial the petitioner has been ultimately convicted for offence under sections 467, 468, 414, 472 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default sentence. 10. The learned appellate Court also considered the materials on record and upheld the judgment of conviction. The learned appellate Court further recorded that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a very lenient approach in awarding the composite sentence and the order of sentence required no interference. There are concurrent findings of the two courts based on appreciation of materials on record convicting the petitioner. 11. After going through the materials on record, judgements passed by both the courts and considering the nature of offence and the manner it has been committed, this Court is not inclined to take any 3 lenient view in this case and accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 12. This Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. 14. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. concerned through ‘FAX’. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4