Jharkhand High Court
Lakho Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 31 August, 2020
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 927 of 2014
Lakho Oraon, son of Late Lallu Oraon ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : None For the Opp. Party : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
06/31.08.2020 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari is present.
3. This case was taken up on 25.08.2020 wherein it was observed from the records that the petitioner had furnished his Vakalatnama from jail and he was never enlarged on bail by this court in this revision petition. Accordingly, it appeared that the petitioner had already served the sentence. On that date, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite party- State had appeared.
4. Today, nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- state has submitted that he has received instructions that the petitioner has already served the sentence and has been released from jail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party- State that the present case has become infructuous. He submits that as the petitioner has served the sentence, therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not appearing to assist this Court today.
5. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement dated 27.06.2014 passed by learned A.J.C.-XII, Ranchi who has been pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal No. 101/2014 filed by the petitioner. The learned lower 2 appellate court modified the sentence and the petitioner was sentenced only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code for one year Rigorous Imprisonment. So far as the sentence under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same was set-aside by referring to Section 71 of Indian Penal Code.
6. The petitioner was held guilty under Sections 392 and 411 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court vide judgement of conviction and order dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 1632 of 2002 arising out of Burmu P.S. Case No. 27 of 2002 dated 15.06.2002 .The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. Whereas, the other co-accused namely Goinda Oraon was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code only. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered all the evidences on record and upon due application of mind convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid sections.
7. The learned lower appellate court also considered the evidence of all the witnesses as well as documentary evidences on record and after carefully scrutinizing the evidences on record, found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 392 and 411 and Indian Penal Code. So far as the other co-accused is concerned, he was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.
8. This Court finds that while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the learned lower appellate court held as follows :
" In the instant case, the occurrence took place on 14.06.02 at 08:45 P.M. and recovery was made from the house of Lakhva Oraon on 18.06.02 at 06:15 A.M. within 85 hours and the looted articles were identified on 23.07.02 during T.I. Parade by Nandu 3 Oraon, Tritiya Oraon and Kumari Devi in presence of Block Development Officer, Burmu which has been marked as Exbt.3. But Kumari Devi P/w-1 concealed this fact in her evidence and tried to help Lakho Oraon saying that the culprits had covered their faces. Under such circumstances, I am of the finding that the evidence led by P/w-5 and P/w-6 is sufficient to prove the guilty of Lakhva Oraon u/s 392 and 411 of I.P.C. The material available on record inspires the requisite amount of confidence and the complicity of Lakhva Oraon has been duly proved by P/w-5 and P/w-6. Exbt.2 & 2/1 along with Exbt.3 is sufficient to prove the charges u/s 411 of the I.P.C. against convict Lakhva Oraon. The I.O. of the case has not been examined by the prosecution but non-examination of I.O. will not wiped out the prosecution case in toto. The evidence of P/w-5 and P/w-6 are cogent, consistent, reliable and worthy to credence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a Catina of Judgment that, if the evidence of solitary witness is cogent and do inspire the requisite amount of confidence, so, order of conviction can be made. Though P/w-1, 2, 6, 7, 8 & 9 have not duly supported the prosecution case but their evidence have some assistance and are not fully liable to be discarded. They have supported the occurrence but have not stated about complicity of convict Lakho Oraon.
Consequently, I am satisfied to hold that the Ld. Court below has not erred and has rightly convicted Lakho oraon with proper appreciation of the evidence. I find that there is no illegality, ambiguity and absurdity on the point of appreciation of the fact and also on the point of law. The Ld. Court below has properly appreciated the evidence of PW-5, 6, 7 & 8 ,Therefore, the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Ld. Court below does not requires any interference by this Court against Lakho Oraon. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against Lakho @ Lakhwa Oraon is affirmed but the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against Goinda Oraon is hereby set aside."
9. This Court further finds that while considering the sentence, the learned lower appellate court referred to Section 71 of Indian Penal Code and set-aside the sentence under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code i.e. for one year Rigorous Imprisonment, was affirmed.
410. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings of fact which have been recorded by the learned courts below while convicting the petitioner under Sections 392 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and each of the learned courts below have scrutinized the materials on record. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements passed by the learned courts below in connection with conviction of the petitioner , this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
12. Let the Lower Court's Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through "FAX/email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj