Jharkhand High Court
Jatlu Chauhan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 3 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1195
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 56 of 2014
Jatlu Chauhan, Son of Murgo Chauhan, resident of Village-
Khambhra @ Kambra, P.O. & P.S.-I.E.L., Dist.-Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suchendra Prasad, Advocate
---
08/03.07.2020
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 218/2012, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with I.E.L. P.S. Case No. 12/2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 419/2005 has been upheld. The learned trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments of the petitioner
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main point which is involved in this case that the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, in as much as, they have stated that they had put their signatures on a blank page and there has been no seizure in their presence. He also submits that there was no independent witness to support the prosecution case. He submits that another co-accused, 2 namely, Surender Singh who was said to be the main culprit of the case has been acquitted by the learned lower appellate court but the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained. He further submits that there is no theft report of coal and accordingly, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 414 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel submits that the case was instituted in the year 2005 and the petitioner has suffered the rigors of criminal case for a long time and the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 5 months 18 days in connection with the present case and considering this aspect of the matter, some lenient view may be taken and sentence be modified. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit certain amount of fine as may be imposed by this Court.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State opposes the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings of fact involved in this case and therefore, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for. He submits that in order to convict the petitioner under Section 414 of IPC, the theft report of the recovered article is not a condition precedent. He also submits that although the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but they have identified their signatures on the seizure list and other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case with consistent evidence. The learned trial court has scrutinized the evidences and found that there is consistent evidence against the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner has been rightly convicted under Section 414 of IPC. So far as the acquittal of Surender Singh is concerned, the learned counsel submits that there is no evidence to link Surender Singh with the alleged offence and accordingly he has 3 been given the benefit of doubt by the learned lower appellate court and has been acquitted.
Findings of this Court
6. The prosecution case is based on the written report lodged by the informant (P.W.-3) on 27.07.2005 on the basis of secret information with regard to storage of illegal coal and on 27.07.2005 at 12:30 p.m., the informant along with the police party reached near the house of the petitioner for conducting a raid, but on seeing the raiding party, one person fled away. The people of the locality gathered there disclosed the name of the absconded person as Jatlu Chouhan, the petitioner. On Search, eight tonnes of coal was recovered near the house of the petitioner and thereafter, documents were demanded from the father of petitioner, but no documents were produced. Accordingly, the coal was seized and seizure list was prepared in presence of two witnesses, namely, Sudama Karmali and Anil Kumar Powariya. The people nearby further informed that the coal was stacked by one Surender Singh for illegal trade. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Bermo P.S. Case No. 12 of 2005 dated 27.05.2005 under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and the co- accused Surender Singh. The charge-sheet was submitted under Section 414 of IPC and cognizance was also taken under the said section. The prosecution has examined five witnesses; P.W.-1 Sudama Karmali, P.W.-2 Anil Powariya, P.W.-3 Ajay Kumar Sahu, P.W.4 Vijay Kumar Thakur and P.W.-5 Chandra Shekhar Singh. The prosecution has proved Ext. 1- Signature of P.W.-1 on seizure list; Ext.1/1 - Signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list; Ext. 1/2 - Seizure list; Ext. 2 -Written Report and Ext. 3-Formal F.I.R.
7. The learned trial court appreciated the evidences produced by the prosecution and held the petitioner as well as 4 the co-accused guilty of offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and held that the coal was recovered from the courtyard of the house of the petitioner hidden behind the bushes and that the same was for illegal trading by the co- accused, Surender Singh. The learned trial court found that the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 were consistent and the petitioner could not produce any documents in connection with recovered coal. The learned trial court also considered that the seizure list witnesses had at least identified their signatures on the seizure list, though as per them there was no recovery in their presence. The learned trial court sentenced the present petitioner as well as the co-accused, Surender Singh for two years rigorous imprisonment punishable under Section 414 of IPC. The learned trial court also considered the submission of the petitioner and the co-accused that they have neither been convicted in any criminal case earlier nor there is any criminal case pending against them, but found that it had come in the evidence that so far as co-accused Surender Singh is concerned, he was an accused in another case also.
8. The learned lower appellate court also scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution and recorded consistent finding regarding recovery of coal and held that the prosecution succeeded to prove the charge under Section 414 of IPC against the present petitioner and so far as the co-accused Surender Singh is concerned, there was no legal evidence to establish that Surender Singh had stacked the coal in the house of the present petitioner and consequently set-aside the conviction and sentence of the co-accused Surender Singh. The learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence so far as the present petitioner is concerned.
9. Upon going through both the judgments of the learned courts below, this Court finds that there is consistent evidence 5 of P.Ws.-3 and 4 who were members of raiding party and also of P.W.-5 who had also stated in his evidence that verification report was called for from the Project Officer, Swang Colliery and it was admitted in the report the coal belongs to Swang Colliery. The learned lower appellate court considered that the prosecution case cannot be set-aside only for the reason that the seizure list witnesses have not supported the factum of seizure in their presence and also considered the fact that the seizure list witnesses admitted their signatures on the seizure list and their evidences that there was no seizure in their presence cannot be accepted.
10. This Court finds that the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who were members of the raiding party/investigating officer and their depositions remain uncontroverted in the cross-examination and defence failed to elicit any contradiction in their evidence and therefore the learned courts below refused to discard their testimonies simply because they are official witnesses. The learned court below also considered that it is not necessary that the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code must be preceded by offence of reported theft. The judgement passed by the learned courts below are well reasoned judgements and based on sound principles of law and have given concurrent findings of facts so far as the allegations against the petitioner are concerned.
11. It has been held in the case of Ajendranath vs. State of M.P., AIR 1964 SC 170 that Section 414 IPC makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 IPC that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft.
612. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
13. So far as the sentence of the present petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case right from the year 2005 and the petitioner has already remained in custody for more than 5 ½ months. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be served if sentence is modified and fine amount is enhanced to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified and the petitioner is convicted for the period which the petitioner has already undergone in custody in relation to the present case and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 7,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of two months from today.
14. If the fine amount is not deposited within the aforesaid time the bail bond of the petitioner will be cancelled by the learned court below and the petitioner would serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the learned court below.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.
16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed.
18. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul