…. Santosh Kumar Pandey, son of Baijnath Pandey, resident of village- Jarmune, P.S.-Bagodar, District-Giridih v. …
Case Details
2025:JHHC:38752 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1352 of 2004 …. Santosh Kumar Pandey, son of Baijnath Pandey, resident of village- Jarmune, P.S.-Bagodar, District-Giridih Versus ……Appellant The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Sabyasachi, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP …… Judgment CAV on 03.07.2025 Delivered on 17.10.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2004 and order sentence dated 17.07.2004 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.229 of 2003 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.01.2003 at 07.00 AM, the Informant Sukhdeo Ram, an employee of Sriram Automobiles, Khori Mahua, P.S.-Dhanwar, District-Giridih, was making calculation of income and expenditure at the counter of the petrol pump with another employee namely Mahabir Yadav. In the meantime, another employee namely Rajendra Yadav came at the counter alongwith a person and asked for change of Rs.500/-. But suddenly three unknown persons also came at the counter, took out their revolvers and brought them under control. All the unknown persons asked the informant to handover the cash otherwise he would be murdered. Thereafter, all those unknown persons looted away Rs.20,033/- in cash. After that, one customer came at the petrol pump for fueling his motorcycle bearing registration no.-11A/9121 but two unknown persons standing at the petrol pump took away his motorcycle. Thereafter, all the unknown miscreants fled away after looting cash and motorcycle from the petrol pump. It is stated that all the miscreants were age around 25- 26 years and they were six in numbers. One of the miscreants was tall and one was of short height and the rest were of average height. The miscreants had taken away cash including notes of Rs.500/- also. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R and the appellant was not the person for committing dacoity in the petrol pump of the Informant. It is further submitted that the appellant has not been identified in T.I. Parade. It is submitted that the motorcycle was looted by other miscreants and the allegation of recovery of Rs.3530/- is also not correct. It is submitted that the Informant has not identified the appellant during trial and also in T.I. Parade and hence the appellant may be acquitted. It is further alternatively submitted that the appellant had faced long protracted trial for more than 22 years, and the appellant remained in custody for more than three years i.e. he was taken into custody on 01.02.2003 and he remained in jail till 27.01.2006. It is submitted that the appellant was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.01.2006. It is further 2 submitted that the appellant is an old aged person and hence, lenient view may be taken in favour of the appellant as he has faced long protracted trial for around twenty two (22) years. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P for the State has raised no objection and submitted that necessary order may be passed. 6. in Dhanwar P.S. Case the F.I.R reveals that It No. 08/2003 was lodged by the informant namely Sukhdeo Ram on 18.01.2003 as occurrence taken place on 17.01.2003 against the appellant for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. 7. It transpires that the police, after investigation, had submitted the chargesheet against the appellant on 30.04.2003 under Section 395/412/120-B of IPC before the learned C.J.M Giridih. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M. Giridih had taken cognizance on 13.06.2003 against the appellant under Sections 395/412/120-B. 8. Thereafter supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 9. Thereafter, the charges had been framed against the appellant Santosh Kumar Pandey under Sections 395 and 412 of IPC on 15.10.2003 by the learned 2nd Fast Track Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial. 10. During Trial of the prosecution got examined eight (8) witnesses in support of its case, who are as follows:- (i) PW-1 is Binod Kumar Singh, (ii) PW-2 is Mahabir Yadav, (iii) PW-3 is Rajendra Yadav, (iv) PW-4 is Sukhdeo Ram (i.e. Informant), (v) PW-5 is Triveni Kumar, (vi) PW-6 is Naresh Prasad Sinha (i.e. I.O.), 3 (vii) PW-7 is Prayag Yadav, (viii) PW-8 Suman Anan (i.e. another I.O.) 11. The prosecution case in support of its case had got proved Ext.-1 is the Signature of Binod Kr. Singh on T.I.P paper, Ext.-1/1 is the signature of Sukhdeo Ram on T.I.P paper, Ext.1/2 is the writing and signature on T.I.P paper, Ext.-2 is the signature of Mahabir Yadav on T.I.P paper, the following Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Ext.-3 is the signature of Sukhdeo Ram on Fardbayan, Ext.2/1 is the writing and signature on T.I.P dated 16.02.2003, Ext.4 is the writing and signature of Judicial Magistrate on T.I.P dated 16.02.2003, Ext.5 is the confessional statement of Santosh Kumar Pandey and Ext.6 is the seizure list Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 (viii) (ix) 12. of Cr.P.C on 25.05.2004 before the learned Trial Court and to which the appellant had denied the circumstances put forth before him. 13. No any defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. 14. However, the defence in support his case got proved following documents as the Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.A is CC of judgment of S.T. 224 of 2003 (ii) Ext.B is CC of order sheet of S.T. 224 of 2003 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below, after considering the case of both the sides, has convicted the appellant as mentioned above and sentenced him on different ground as mentioned above. 16. the occurrence transpires
Legal Reasoning
the FIR from that It took place on 17.01.2003 at the Petrol Pump, where the Informant was working as an 4 employee and at the time of occurrence, three unknown person suddenly came in the petrol pump and took the Informant and his another employees Rajender Yadav in their custody and looted cash of Rs.20,033/- and they also looted one red color motorcycle of one customer, who had come to the petrol pump for taking petrol but two other miscreants also took him in their possession and looted his motorcycle, and there were miscreants total six (06) in numbers. Though, the written report submitted on 17.01.2003 by the Informant but the FIR was lodged on 18.01.2003 by the police. 17. P.W.-1, namely, Binod Kumar Singh, who had come with, the looted motorcycle, who had stated during evidence that the motorcycle from which he came to fetch the petrol from the petrol pump, belongs to his friend Manoj Kumar Singh. However, when his vehicle stopped at the petrol pump, then two miscreants snatched the motorcycle and its key at pistol point and thereafter three other miscreants also came out from the counter of the petrol pump and they fled away with his motorcycle. He stated that two miscreants fled away by his motorcycle and the other miscreants fled away by their own motorcycles. Thereafter, he had informed the matter to Manoj Kumar Singh and he was called for identification of Hero Honda motorcycle thereafter he and Sukhdeo Ram i.e. the Informant had identified the motorcycle and he put his signature on T.I. parade chart of motorcycle marked as Exhibit-1/1. However, he also stated that all the miscreants had covered their face so he could not identify any miscreants and the Informant had also not identified the miscreants during Court. During cross-examination, he merely stated that only one vehicle was kept at police station for identification and one vehicle splendor motorcycle was standing there from earlier. 5 Thus, the P.W.-1, namely, Binod Kumar Singh, had only identified his motorcycle but he has not identified the appellant. 18. P.W.-2, namely, Mahabir Yadav, who was also the employee, on 17.01.2003 stated that he and alongwith Sukhdeo Ram were sitting on the counter and then one another employee Rajendra Yadav came and then they were talking and in the meantime 3 to 4 miscreants entered inside the counter, who were having pistol in their hands and looted the cash of Rs.20,033/- from the counter and also disconnected the telephone wire and threatened them for dire consequence. In the meantime, a customer came with Hero Honda motorcycle of red color, which was also looted and there were six (06) miscreants who came by the motorcycle. Thereafter, they were called by the police for verification and identification of one note and he had identified one note of Rs.500/-. During cross-examination, he stated that the note, which he was identified, has not been produced before him during Trial. However, the said note was kept in the police station and thus, the identification of Rs.500/- is doubtful on the basis of evidence of P.W.-2, namely, Mahabir Yadav. 19. PW-3 is the Rajendra Yadav, who is another employee of said petrol pump and who also stated during evidence that three (03) miscreants came into the counter and looted cash from the counter including the note of Rs.500/- and then they had taken Mahavir Yadav, Sukhdev Oraon in possession at pistol point. In the meantime, one customer came by Hero Honda motorcycle for fetching petrol but the said motorcycle and its key were looted by the miscreants at pistol point and also looted Rs.20,033/- from the counter. However, the witness did not identify the appellant and 6 other accused persons during trial. Thus, PW-3, namely, Rajendra Yadav is the witness on the point of occurrence but he has not identified the appellant. 20. PW-4, namely Sukhdeo Ram, who is the Informant in this case, stated during evidence that on 17.01.2003 at 07.00 A.M. while he was inside the counter and one person has given note of Rs.500/- for taking petrol and then Rajendra Yadav i.e. the PW-3 arrived there. However, suddenly three (03) to four (04) unknown miscreants came and looted the cash at pistol point and they also disconnected the telephone wire and fled away with the motorcycle. He also stated that miscreants also looted a motorcycle of one customer. He has proved his signature on T.I.P Chart earlier as marked Exhibit 1/1. However, the Informant could not identify the appellant namely Santosh Pandey and another co-accused persons. During cross-examination, he stated that one motorcycle of red color was kept in T.I. Parade. Thus, PW-4, namely Sukhdeo Ram, i.e. the informant, who has supported the prosecution case and identified the looted motorcycle but he had not identified the appellant during trial before the learned Court below. 21. P.W.-5 is Triveni Kumar, who is Block Development Officer, Raj Dhanwar, stated that on 15.02.2003 he had conducted T.I.P of Hero Honda motorcycle in the premises at Block Office and in the said T.I. Parade he kept eight (08) motorcycle including the looted motorcycle in the premises of Block Office and two independent witnesses namely Manoj Kumar Singh and Mahabir Yadav were also present. He also identified his signature on T.I.P. Chart marked as Exhibit-1/2/. He further stated that witness Mahavir Yadav had identified one note of Rs.500/- on 16.02.2003 7 and his signature on T.I.P chart proved as Exhibit-2/1. He further stated that Manoj Kumar Singh, owner of the red color Hero Honda Motorcycle, identified his motorcycle on 16.02.2003 and he proved the signature on T.I.P chart marked as Exhibit-4. During cross-examination, he stated that T.I.P. of motorcycle was conducted at Block Office premises. He also identified one note of Rs.500/- in T.I.P chart. However, the said note is not placed before him and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih had given permission of T.I. Parade. Thus, P.W.-5, namely, Triveni Kumar has also supported the prosecution case. 22. P.W.-6, namely, Naresh Prasad Sinha, who is the investigating Officer, has stated that on receiving information of dacoity, he alongwith the police personals went to the place of occurrence. Then, he recorded the fardbeyan of Informant i.e. Sukheo Ram and he further recorded the statements of witnesses namely Mahabir Yadav, Rajendra Ram and Binod Kumar Singh and inspected the P.O. and had given the details of FIR lodged on 18.01.2003. He further stated that the miscreants had thrown away the looted motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 11A 9471 which was seized in presence of independent witnesses on 18.02.2003 then the provisions of act was modified that under Section 395/412 of IPC then he arrested the appellant Santosh Kumar Pandey, on the basis of his confessional statement recorded in Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No.21/2003 dated 16.01.2003 instituted for the offence under Section 395/412 of IPC and also seized splendor motorcycle and also mentioned engine no.02E18M32672 and chasis no.02E20C33425 of the same of the motorcycle. 8 23. He further stated that the miscreants looted Rs.30,033/- from the cash counter of the said petrol pump including one torn note of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, on 31.03.2003 he had remanded the appellant Santosh Kumar Pandey in this case and had put the Hero Honda motorcycle in T.I. Parade and the T.I. Parade was conducted by Block Development Officer, Dhanwar in presence of witnesses who had identified the motorcycle and one looted note of Rs.500/-. He further stated that, firstly other accused, namely, Tulsi Rana was arrested on 22.03.2003, who had confessed his guilt then he took the statement of witnesses Prayag Yadav on 24.03.2003. However, he further stated that the appellant, namely Santosh Kumar Pandey, was produced for T.I. parade in presence of Sri Jaganath Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Giridih. However, the witness could not identify any of the accused persons. Thereafter, he verified the criminal antecedent report of the appellant namely Santosh Kumar Pandey, Tulsi Rana and Dular Chandra Pandit and noticed their antecedents and he has submitted his chargesheet against the appellant under Section 395/495/120B of IPC and identified all the miscreants including the appellant, namely Santosh Kumar Pandey, Tulsi Rana and Dular Chandra Pandit. 24. During cross-examination, he stated that he started the investigation of this case and further stated that the Informant Sukhdeo Ram and his other companions had not identified the accused person. He further stated that he had not prepared any seizure list in this case with regard to recovery from the accused persons. However, he had not recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, namely, Santosh Kumar Pandey and he also admitted that the Informant, namely Sukhdeo Ram had not stated 9 in his fardbeyan that one note of Rs.500/- was found in torn condition. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of PW-6, namely, Naresh Prasad Sinha, i.e. the Investigating Officer, it is evident that he had recovered one looted motorcycle near the bushes of the petrol pump on 18.01.2003 and he had submitted the chargesheet and also corroborated the prosecution case. 25. P.W.-7, namely, Prayag Mahto @ Prayag Yadav, who is hearsay witness and stated that dacoity was conducted in the petrol pump and one Hero Honda motorcycle and cash amount was taken away by the dacoits and his statement recorded by Dy.S.P. However, the witness i.e. P.W.-7, namely, Prayag Mahto @ Prayag Yadav had not identified the appellant. Even the P.W.-7, namely, Prayag Mahto @ Prayag Yadav is declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PW.-7 is not relevant. 26. P.W.-8 namely Suman Anan, who is another Investigating Officer, stated during evidence that he had recorded the confessional statement of appellant Santosh Kumar Pandey on 19.01.2003 and one of the witnesses had identified one note of Rs.500/- looted from the petrol pump of the Informant. he has proved the seizure list of articles marked as Exhibit-6. During cross-examination, he admitted to have not mentioned the case number of the confessional statement of the appellant namely Santosh Kumar Pandey, but had mentioned Bagodar P.S. Case No.21/03 on the seizure list. He also admitted to be not aware of decision delivered on Bagodar PS. Case No.21/03, however, he stated that he learnt at the police station that the looted motorcycle belong to Dhanwar P.S. No.08/03. 10 He had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant namely Santosh Kumar Pandey in the light of lantern and torch. 27. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-8 Suman Anan, it is evident, that he had not mentioned the case number in the confessional statement of the appellant which was recorded in another case i.e. Dhanwar P.S. Case No.09/03. However, he claimed to have got identified one note of Rs.500/- looted from the petrol pump of the Informant. 28. It transpires from the T.I.P chart marked as Exhibit-04 that Manoj Kumar Singh, i.e. the PW-1 has identified his looted motorcycle bearing Engine no.02E18M32672 and Chasis no.02E20C33425 of the said motorcycle. 29. From perusal of the confessional statement of the appellant, namely, Santosh Kumar Pandey, it would appear that the same was recoded on 19.01.2003 but the case number has not been mentioned and thus, the confessional statement of the appellant is not reliable. He also stated in this confessional statement that looted motorcycle was kept in the house of one Chintaman Pandit. 30. From perusal of the Exhibit-6, which the seizure list, it would appear that one money purse containing Rs.3530/- cash including one torn note of Rs.500/-, one titan watch and one red colour Hero Honda splendor motorcycle were also recovered from his possession. 31. However, it also transpires that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 395 of IPC and the appellant was convicted only under Section 412 of IPC. 32. recovery Thus, the of motorcycle is proved from the possession of the appellant vide seizure list marked as 11 Exhibit-6. 33. Thus, therefore, this Court finds there is no illegality in conviction of the appellant under Section 412 of IPC and the judgment of conviction 15.07.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. 34. It appears that occurrence took place in the year 2003 and more than twenty two (22) years have passed, and the appellant has suffered the mental agony of long protracted trial. 35. It also appears that the appellant was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice M.Y. Iqbal as then His Lordship was) of this Court on 27.01.2006. 36. It further appears that the appellant has remained in custody for around three (03) years i.e. from 01.02.2003 till 27.01.2006. 37. So far as, the sentence of R.I. for seven (07) years is concerned and also considering that the appellant has faced long protracted trial and he has remained in custody for around three (03) years and hence the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the extent that the custody of the appellant from 01.02.2003 till 27.01.2006 shall be the period of sentence. 38. Under the circumstances, in view of the fact and circumstances of this case mentioned above and also considering the fact that appellant has faced long protracted trial for more than 22 years, the sentence of appellant is reduced from seven (07) years to the period undergone by the appellant during jail. 39. Thus, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However, the sentence of the appellant is modified by reducing the sentence from R.I. for seven (07) years to the period undergone by the appellant during jail from 01.02.2003 till 27.01.2006. 12 40. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1352 of 2004 is, hereby, dismissed with the observation mentioned above. 41. Let the entire Original Lower Court Records alongwith this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court by the Office at once. Nishant/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 13