Bittu Kumar Rai @ Bittu Kumar Ray v. ….. Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1463 of 2018 --------- Bittu Kumar Rai @ Bittu Kumar Ray ..… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus ….. Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. --------- ORAL ORDER IN THE COURT 09/17.08.2023 This criminal revision application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the
Legal Reasoning
judgment dated 21st July, 2018, passed by Sri Mithilesh Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, by which Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2017 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.5.2017, passed by Shri Neeraj Kumar, learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, Deoghar in connection with R.G.R. Case No.55 of 2014, corresponding to T.R. No 176 of 2017, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 379 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the petitioner has further been sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months in case of non-payment of the fine amount. -2- 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report lodged by the informant- Hawaldar Moron Singh Devgam, posted at Madhupur G.R.P. is that while he and one Ratnesh Kumar Singh were on platform duty on 14.09.2014, from 8.00 p.m. to 4.00 a.m., the Asansole-Deoghar Passenger train arrived at platform no.2 at about 10.15 pm and the passengers shouted that a miscreant was fleeing away after snatching a bag, then the police officials chased and apprehended the petitioner with a bag. The petitioner disclosed his name as Bittu Kumar Roy and on search, a black colour bag containing some clothes and Nokia mobile bearing SIM No. 8102410300 was recovered and he could not give satisfactory answer with respect to the alleged recovered articles. 3. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned court below are not sustainable in the eye of law, however, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner has remained in custody from 15.9.2014 to 20.02.2015 and from 27.9.2019 to 24.10.2019, i.e. the date of order passed in this Criminal Revision Application -3- by which the petitioner has been granted bail, i.e. around six months and hence, he is not arguing on the merits of the case and it is submitted that a lenient view may be taken for the petitioner. 5. However, the learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below require no interference, however it is submitted that on the point of sentence appropriate order may be passed. 6. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of learned counsel for both the sides. 7. It transpires that the petitioner was apprehended with one bag on search of which some clothes and one mobile phone were found. 8. It transpires that F.I.R. was lodged on 15.09.2014 under Section 414 of the I.P.C., however police, after investigation of the case, submitted chargesheet under Section 379/411 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner on 13.11.2014 before the learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar. 9. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner by one Ratnesh Kumar, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur under section 379 and 411 of the I.P.C. to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. -4- 10. It transpires that during trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Ranjit Yadav, (ii) P.W. 2 is Moron Singh Deogum, who is the informant, (iii) P.W. 3 is Ratnesh Kr. Singh, Police Constable, (iv) P.W. 4 is Chandra Deo Ram, A.S.I. and I.O. of the case, (v) P.W. 5 is Sanjay Chowdhary, Labour and (vi) P.W. 6 is Biren Kumar Rai, Brother- in-Law. 11. The prosecution has got following documents marked as Exhibits. “ (i) Exhibit 1 is the Written Report, (ii) Exhibit 1/1 is the signature of the P.W.1 on the Written Report, (iii) Exhibit 1/ 2 is the written application dated 15.09.2014, (iv) Seizure List is Exhibit 2, (v) Signature of Witnesses Ranjit Yadav is Ext. 2/1, (vi) Signature of witness Ratnesh Kumar Singh is Ext. 2/2, (vii) Signature of Chandradeo Oraon on the Seizure List is 2/3 respectively and (viii)Signature of I.O. on formal F.I.R. is Ext.3” -5- 12. Thereafter the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.04.2015 and he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 13. Neither any defence witness had been produced nor any document had been marked as exhibits and the trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 14. Thereafter the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2017 before the appellate court which was also dismissed. Hence, this criminal revision application has been filed. 15. It transpires from Lower Court Record that the petitioner has remained in custody from 15.09.2014 to 20.2.2015, i.e. around Five months and five days. Thereafter, the petitioner was again in custody after dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2017 from 27.9.2019 till 24.10.2019, i.e. the day on which the order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court releasing the petitioner on bail. Thus, the petitioner has remained in custody for about six months. 16. This is a case of recovery of a bag with a mobile which was handed over to the informant also. 17. Under the circumstances, Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Sofar as the impugned judgments passed by the learned -6- Courts below convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. are concerned, the same are upheld, however, so far as the order of sentence is concerned, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar and hence, the period undergone by the petitioner shall be the period of sentence. The petitioner is enlarged from the liability of his bail bond. 18. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application No.1463 of 2018 is dismissed with the modification of the sentence as mentioned above. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith along with Lower Court Records. s.m. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)