1. Jyoti Lal Patar, Son of Ram Prasad Patar. 2. Raj Kumar Singh @ v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1157 of 2015 ------ 1. Jyoti Lal Patar, Son of Ram Prasad Patar. 2. Raj Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh @ Banti, Son of Shri Niranjan Singh. 3. Bijay Kumar Das, Son of Sri Bipal Ram, resident of Old Karo, P.S. & P.O. – Bermo, District – Bokaro. .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party WITH Cr. Revision No. 1169 of 2015 ------ Binod Kumar Mahto @ Binod Mahto, Son of Kamal Chand Mahto, Resident of Village – Pabli, P.O. & P.S. – Nawadih, District – Bokaro. .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ------
Legal Reasoning
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners For the State ------ : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Basak, Advocate. Mr. Suman Ghosh, Advocate. : Mr. Praful Jojo, Advocate. [In Cr. Revision No. 1157/2015] Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate. [In Cr. Revision No. 1169/2015] ------ Order No. 18 / Dated 28.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APPs appearing for the State. 2. Both the criminal revisions are directed against the judgement dated 06.08.2015, passed learned District & Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009, whereby Page 1 of 6 and wherein, the learned District & Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2009 passed learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with T.R. No. 886/2009, G.R. No. 65 of 2007, arising out of Chandrapura P. S. Case No. 05/2007, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under Sections 392 & 411 of the I.P.C. and thereby sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and further both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. 4. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that on 24.01.2007 at 1:30 P.M., the informant went to S.B.I. Chandrapura for withdrawing Rs. 5 lakhs and at about 3:30 P.M., he withdrawn the same from the Bank and kept it in a black bag and proceed towards his Co-operative Bank, Jharnadih. When he reached near football ground of Phusro, Chandrapura, a red coloured Hero Honda boarded with three persons came from behind and snatched the bag of money on the point of pistol and started to flee away. In the meantime, Dugda O/C Amod Narain Singh, Bokaro, Jharia Out Post In-charge along with other police officials Page 2 of 6 came and on chasing three accused were apprehended along with bag containing five lakhs rupees and one accused managed to escape by his motorcycle and on search pistol and some live cartridges recovered from their possession. Thereafter, the present case being Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 5 of 2007 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 392/411 of the I.P.C. 5. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Sections 392 / 411 of the I.P.C. and thereafter, cognizance for the aforesaid offences was taken against the petitioners. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 392 / 411 of the I.P.C. and the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On completion of prosecution witness, statement of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they claimed to be innocent. 6. After conclusion of trial, the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392 & 411 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioners and the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 06.08.2015 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, which has been assailed in this revision. Page 3 of 6 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has confined his revision petition to the quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, instead of merits of the case. 9. It is submitted that as per prosecution case, all the four petitioners dashed the informant (Bank Officials) and snatched one bag from him containing Rs. 5 lacs. On raising alarm, petitioners namely, Bijay Kumar Das, Raj Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh and Jyoti Lal Patar were immediately apprehended and bag containing money was recovered and delivered to the informant. Another petitioner Binod Kumar Mahto @ Binod Mahto was managed to escape by his motorcycle. 10. It is further submitted that one country made pistol was also recovered from petitioner Raj Kumar Singh and two live cartridges each were recovered from the possession of Jyoti Lal Patar and Bijay Kumar Das and with aid of Section 45 of the Cr.P.C., petitioners Raj Kumar Singh @ Banti @ Banti Singh, Jyoti Lal Patar and Bijay Kumar Das were prosecuted under Section 25(1- B)1/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act, in which petitioners have been acquitted vide order dated 15.05.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1147 of 2015. Except the present case, petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. Page 4 of 6 11. It is further submitted that petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under section 392 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation, which was confirmed by the learned appellate court. 12. It is further submitted that out of three years of imprisonment, petitioners have undergone 09 months 17 days imprisonment during trial of the case which may be treated as substantially undergone the awarded sentence and have been sufficiently punished. The case was instituted in the year 2007 and since then, more than 15 years have been elapsed. Thereafter, petitioners have never involved in any other case and settled in their life. Therefore, petitioners may be sentenced for the period already undergone by them and petitioners are also ready to deposit the fine amount. In this view of the matter, these revisions may be allowed. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that it is case of day light robbery and petitioners were caught raid handed with the robbed articles. Hence, no leniency should be made in the matter of sentence also and this revision is fit to be dismissed. Page 5 of 6 14. It appears that the petitioners have been convicted for both the offences under Sections 392 / 411, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners might have been punished either for commission of robbery or for receiving the property obtained from robbery. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, these criminal revisions are dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the sentence passed against the petitioners by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them during investigation / trial of the case and to also pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each by the petitioners before the concerned trial court, which shall be utilized for defraying prosecution expenses. 16. Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/-NAFR Page 6 of 6