Partly allowed

Pati Choudhary Sripati Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2018Cr.Rev./627/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a conviction for Section 394 IPC robbery. Finding the prosecution case proven, the court maintained conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner due to delay in trial. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Bail bonds discharged.

Pati Choudhary Sripati Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.627 of 2002

¶3

Pati Choudhary @ Sripati Choudhary …… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

…… Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶7

For the Petitioner : : Mr. B.P. Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : APP

¶8

04/Dated 14.03.2018

¶9

The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23.08.2002 passed by Sri Bhawesh Chandra Jha, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltanganj in Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 1998 whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 12.05 1998 passed by Sri Paras Nath Roy, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Daltanganj in Chainpur P.S. Case NO. 177 of 1983, corresponding to G.R. No. 1654 of 1983 and has convicted the petitioner under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

¶10

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 16.12.1983 in the evening the informant and his brother namely Nand Kishor Choudhary were sitting in the Varanda at about 5.30 p.m, four persons came there and asked them to keep quite. It is alleged that when the informant started saying , all the accused persons started assault with lathi and the informant started shouting, the petitioner showed him country-made pistol and asked him to remain silent otherwise he will fire and give a lathi blow on his thigh. Thereafter, Sripati Choudhary (petitioner) entered into the house of the informant, 2 persons were standing outside the house. In the meantime, the informant raised alarm, then all the accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that the villagers also assembled there and tried to search the miscreants but they succeeded in escaping. When the informant came in the house, he was told by his daughter-

¶11

¶12

in-law that miscreants snatched one Hasuli from the neck and also they have taken away some utensils. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged by the informant.

¶13

After investigation the police has submitted final form under section 394 I.PC. During trial, the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgments of the trial court, has submitted that no any single independent witness has been examined on behalf of prosecution and senction 394 I.P.C is not attracted in this case but the trial court has not considered the oral evidence of the witnesses. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody from 23.12.1983 to 12.01.1984, 06.07.1985 to 04.12.1986, 16.11.2002 to 30.11.2002 and from 31.08.1997 to 09.11.1997, thus the petitioner has remained in custody for about one and half year.

¶15

Learned A.P.P has submitted that prosecution has proved its case.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, since this is case of the year, 1983 and petitioner has remained in custody about one and half year and the petitioner has faced rigour of trial since, 1983, so justice would be met if the conviction of the petitioner is maintained and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶17

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed with modification in the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court to the effect that the sentence of three years awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

¶18

The petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.

¶19

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶20

Satyarthi

Pati Choudhary Sripati Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pati Choudhary Sripati Choudhary 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

Vikash Ekka Vs State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Sanwaria Alias Dipak Kumar Sanwaria Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lalu Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

MD Azaz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abid Ansari Alias Md Abid And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rupendra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand