Judgment:
Cr. Revision No. 501 of 2005 --------- Against the judgment dated 09.03.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.02.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in G.R. Case No. 970 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 710 of 2002. --------- 1. Udai Pal, S/o Sri Akal Pal.
2. Vinod Verma @ Binod Verma @ Manju Verma, S/o Late Sital Verma. Both residents of Village- Ganpura, Police Station- Pakuria, District- Pakur.
3. Kabul Ansari, S/o Mianjan Mian, Resident of Village- Jhunki, Police Station- Shikaripara, District- Dumka. ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Uday Choudhury, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- By Court: Heard Mr. Uday Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 09.03.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.02.2002, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in G.R. Case No. 970 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 710 of 2002, by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years has been affirmed. The First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 25.10.1999 the informant after locking the door of his Crusher Office was sleeping in his room. It has been stated that two of the persons were also sleeping in the premises. Allegation has been made that due to a sound from outside the door was opened at which two persons entered the office and started searching the office. It has been alleged that -2- there were altogether four miscreants and they have looted Rs. 11,500/- from the drawer of the table. It is alleged that the informant had identified the miscreants as they were his co-villagers. Based on the aforesaid allegations Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 67 of 1999 was instituted in which after investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and trial proceeded. In course of trial 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Rana Sudhir Pratap Singh has stated that a robbery was committed in his Crusher Office on 25.10.1999 and he had come to know about the incident in the next morning. P.W.2 Amar Dayal Singh although had been declared hostile by the prosecution but in cross-examination he has admitted that some miscreants had come to the place of occurrence and robbed the office on the point of pistol and dagger on 25.10.1999. P.W.3 Sanjay Kr. Verma, is the informant who has stated that on 25.10.1999 he was sleeping in the Crusher Office of Rana Rakesh Pratap Singh. He has stated that he was sleeping alone and on being called by some persons he had opened the door at which two persons had entered and on the point of pistol and dagger they wanted the keys of the almirah. It has further stated that they searched the almirah but since nothing was found they opened the drawer and took away Rs. 11,500/- which was kept in the drawer. This witness claims to have identified three of the miscreants in torch light. P.W.4 Satyabir Singh is the Investigating Officer who had submitted charge sheet. P.W.5 Dhananjay Kr. Singh and P.W.6 Kishori Singh have not supported the prosecution case and therefore they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Rana Rakesh Pratap Singh has supported the incident of robbery, however this witness is a hearsay witness. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioners were convicted by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka on 19.02.2002 for the offence punishable u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The petitioners preferred an appeal -3- being Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka on 09.03.2005. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that delay of 19 hours in recording the fardbeyan proves fatal to the prosecution case as no explanation has been given with respect to the said delay. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that P.W.1 and P.W7 had not identified the petitioners in the dock and therefore the identification itself being doubtful the petitioners deserves to be acquitted. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be suitably modified considering the fact that they have remained for a long time in custody. Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the impugned judgments. It appears from the evidence of P.W.3 that he had been able to identify the petitioners because the petitioners were his co-villagers. The manner of identification and the nature of identification inspire confidence solely because of the fact that the petitioners happened to be the co-villagers of the informant and were therefore known to the informant prior to the date of the incident. The hearsay witnesses being P.W.1 and P.W.7 have stated about the factum of robbery which they later on came to know on the disclosure made by P.W.3. P.W.3 in his evidence has been very consistent with respect to the narration of the events which has unfolded after he had opened the door of the room in which he was sleeping leading to entry of two persons and the subsequent taking away of Rs. 11,500/-. Thus the conviction of the petitioners and its affirmation in appeal was inconsonance with the evidence of the witnesses and therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the -4- petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 in total had remained in custody for a period of about two years whereas the petitioner no. 2 for about twenty two months and the petitioner no. 3 for about twenty eight and a half months. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have been sufficiently punished having completed a major portion of their sentence and since the case is almost two decades old the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be modified suitably. In view of the aforesaid fact, since the petitioners have completed a major portion of the sentence imposed upon them in jail custody, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is therefore modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 7th day of August, 2017 Alok/NAFR