Dismissed

Hari Mihan Ojha And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2017Cr.Rev./644/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging the conviction for dacoity under s. 395/412 IPC. The Court upheld the finding of dacoity supported by witness identification and recovery of loot, rejecting arguments of false implication. It declined to reduce the sentence despite the appellants' prolonged custody.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the conviction and sentence were sustained without any reduction.

Hari Mihan Ojha And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

Cr. Revision No. 644 of 2005

¶2

Against the judgment dated 19.04.2005 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2005 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2^nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda in G.R. Case No. 245 of 1998, corresponding to S.T. No. 218/1998 / 04/1998.

¶3

Hari Mohan Ojha, S/o Nand Lal Ojha

¶4

Umesh Yadav, S/o Late Nanku Yadav

¶5

Gobind Yadav, S/o Late Nanku Yadav

¶6

Robin Yadav, S/o Baldeo Yadav

¶7

Jakir Ansari, S/o Mangan Ansari

¶8

Ramdular Yadav, S/o Ramdhani Yadav Petitioner No. 1 and 4 resident of village- Chinadhab, petitioner No. 2 and 3 resident of village-Gaichand, petitioner no. 5 and 6 resident of village- Charkaede, All Police Station Godda, Sub-Division and Dist- Godda, State of Jharkhand.

¶9

... … Petitioners

¶10

	Versus
The State of Jharkhand	... …Opposite Party ---------
For the Petitioners	: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P. ---------

¶11

Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶12

By Court: Heard Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2005 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2^nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda in G.R. Case No. 245 of 1998, corresponding to S.T. No. 218/1998 / 04/1998 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to R.I. for six years has been affirmed.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶15

-2-

¶16

that the manner of identification and the source of light have not been disclosed by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it would be virtually improbable for the accused persons not to have covered their faces if at all they were known to the informant prior to the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution are all family members. It has been submitted that the Test Identification Parade held by the Investigating Officer and the Circle Officer for identification of the articles recovered were not in accordance with law. Learned counsel thus submits that since the identification of the petitioners itself is doubtful the petitioners deserves acquittal from criminal prosecution.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

¶18

It appears from the First Information Report that while the informant was sleeping with his family all of a sudden four persons had come and after tying him have snatched his watch. The informant had identified Harimohan Ojha, Govind Yadav, Gafoor Mian and Umesh Yadav as the persons who were involved in committing dacoity. It has further been alleged that after snatching the ornaments from his wife they entered inside the house and also took certain valuables and after assaulting the informant party the accused managed to flee away.

¶19

Based on the aforesaid allegations G.R. Case No. 245 of 1998 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet u/s 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed u/s 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the learned 2^nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Godda vide judgment dated 20.09.2000 had been pleased to convict petitioner nos. 1 and 3 for the offence u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner no. 2 for the offences u/s 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted for the offence u/s 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence

¶20

-3-

¶21

which was imposed upon the petitioners was R.I. for six years. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godda on 19.04.2005.

¶22

In course of trial the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.1 Aruna Devi was one of the victims of dacoity and she has stated that she had identified Harimohan Ojha, Umesh Yadav, Govind Yadav and Gafoor Mian. This witness has also stated about the dacoity committed by the petitioners. P.W.2 Purushotam Kumar Ojha is minor son of the informant aged about 15 years who had stated about the details of the stolen articles and the identification of the accused persons in the light of the lantern. P.W.3 Rudma Devi has also stated about the identification of the accused persons who had come inside the house. This witness has further stated that when she went out she had seen the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 along with some other dacoits whom also she had identified. P.W.4 Naresh Ojha is the informant of the case who has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the dacoits have forcibly entered into his house and had taken away several articles. This witness claim to have identified the persons who had come inside the house. He had further identified the articles which were recovered from the accused persons and which were put in the Test Identification Parade. He has further stated that the looted articles were recovered from the house of Gafoor Mian, Robin Yadav, Ramdular Yadav and Umesh Yadav which resulted in preparation of separate seizure list. P.W.5 Suresh Prasad Sah is a co-villager who had stated that when he heard the cry of alarm he had come to the house of the informant and the informant had disclosed about the dacoity committed in his house. P.W.6 Ramnath Ojha was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Parmanand Ojha has stated that in the morning he could come to know about the occurrence of dacoity which had occurred in the house of the informant. This witness has stated that the informant did not disclose about the names of the dacoits. P.W.8 Suryamani Ram is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that after

¶23

-4-

¶24

taking the restatement of the informant he had visited the place of occurrence and recovered some looted articles from the house of Gafoor Mian, Ramdular Yadav, Govind Yadav and Umesh Yadav. He has also prepared the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-6/1 to 6/4. This witness after investigation having found the case to be true had submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. P.W.9 Ekbal Ansari is the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the Test Identification Parade with respect to the articles which were recovered from the house of some of the accused persons.

¶25

The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 establishes the factum of dacoity and the identification of the accused persons. P.W.4 the informant had categorically stated about the place of occurrence and the manner of identification of the accused persons made by him in the light of the lantern. This fact has been supported by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 very consistently. The Investigating Officer who had been examined as P.W.8 had apart from establishing the place of occurrence conducted raid in the house of the accused persons and several looted articles were recovered which were put in the Test Identification Parade which were duly identified by the informant and other witnesses. So far as the identification of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned they are said to have actively taken part in the commission of dacoity and they have been identified in the light of the lantern by several of the nearby persons. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that P.Ws. 1 to 4 are related and therefore interested witnesses but merely on such score their evidences cannot be disbelieved as their evidences are consistent, corroborative and supports the factum of occurrence as well as proves the identification of the accused persons. P.W.3 had stated that petitioner nos. 5 and 6 were present just outside the house and they were also involved in the incident which had taken place. Apart from the identification the looted articles were also recovered from the house of some of the accused persons which as has been stated above had duly been identified by P.W.4 and other witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that if at all the

¶26

-5-

¶27

petitioners were known to the informant they would have taken precaution in covering their faces and therefore the identification of the petitioners seem to be doubtful. The learned trial court had properly appreciated this aspect of the matter as the dacoity which was being committed by the accused persons may have been an action of dare devilry as it has come in course of evidence that there was previous enmity between the accused persons and the informant. Even in cases when the faces are covered but the persons are known to the victim from before the chance of identification by voice or by other actions or by the body language becomes a probability. Therefore merely because the petitioners had not covered their faces or tried to disguise themselves would not lead to a conclusion that the petitioners have not taken part in the commission of the dacoity. The witnesses as has been stated above have clearly stated about the identification of the petitioners, some of whom were inside the house whereas the others were outside the house and the recovery of the looted articles from some of the accused persons were duly proved in course of Test Identification Parade by the competent witnesses. Such fact circumstances having been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court the petitioners were variously convicted for the offences u/s 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, the same is, hereby, sustained.

¶28

However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners are concerned learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period of two years and are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1998. On giving my anxious consideration to the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners the dreaded act of dacoity which was committed in the night and which has been proved in course of trial desists this Court in reducing the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners. The act of the

¶29

-6-

¶30

petitioners is an act against the society which has to be dealt with a very strong hand.

¶31

In such view of the matter, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the plea of the petitioners for reduction in the period of sentence.

¶32

As a consequence to what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶34

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 14^th day of September, 2017 Alok/NAFR

Hari Mihan Ojha And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Mihan Ojha And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Akshat Kumar Jain Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jamila Khatoon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dhirjendra Nath Saw and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shambhu Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Khurshid Alm Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.