Partly allowed

Khaitu Ansari and Another v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./431/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the surviving petitioner for theft but modified the sentence. The court reduced the term to the period already undergone in custody and imposed a fine of Rs. 500 considering the delay and lack of prior criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period undergone in custody with a fine of Rs. 500.

Khaitu Ansari and Another Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.431 of 2012

¶3

Khaitu Ansari, S/o Late Khalil Ansari (deleted vide order dated 16.09.21)

¶4

Lukman Ansari S/o Samir Ansari Both resident of village – Gaychhanda P.O. Ganjori, P.S. Jaridih, District-Bokaro …. Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Opposite party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.

¶10

Through:Video Conferencing

¶11

4/16.09.2021 Learned counsel Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is present.

¶12

Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State is present.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State submits that an affidavit has been filed in the said case indicating that petitioner No.1 has expired and it is submitted that no fine amount, as such, is involved in the present case.

¶14

Considering the submission made, the present petition stands abated so far it relates to petitioner No.1.

¶15

The office is directed to delete the name of petitioner No.1 from the cause title in red ink.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State further submits that so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, an affidavit by the state indicates that he has no criminal antecedent.

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the surviving petitioner submits that he is confining his submissions on the point of sentence.

¶18

Learned counsel submits that the matter relates to theft of a bicycle and the petitioner along with the co-accused, i.e., is original petitioner No.1, were caught on the spot and the cycle was recovered from them. Learned counsel has submitted that the present case was instituted as back as in the year 2001 and

¶19

¶20

more than 20 years have elapsed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State pursuant to the order passed by this Court indicating that there is no other criminal antecedent against the surviving petitioner. He also submits that the surviving petitioner had surrendered before the learned lower court below during the present revision on 3.05.2012 and was directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 4.07.2012. He submits that during trial, the surviving petitioner has remained in custody right from the date of FIR, i.e., 6.05.2001 to 14.06.2001 and ultimately, he was released on bail. Learned counsel submits that surviving petitioner has thus completed more than three months of custody, out of the six months as directed by the learned court below. He submits that some sympathetic view be facts and may taken considering the totality and circumstances of case and the sentence of the petitioner be modified to the period already undergone and some fine amount may be imposed. He also submits that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the court below and the petitioner was apprehended on the spot and there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings, which have been recorded after considering the materials on record and there is no illegality, perversity in the impugned judgment. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the surviving petitioner has no any criminal antecedent and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is up to the court to pass appropriate order on the point of sentence. However, he submits that if the sentence is modified, some fine amount may be imposed.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the informant of the case filed a written report to

¶23

¶24

the officer in-charge of the concerned police station on 5.05.2001, stating that at about 7.45 am, when he had gone to collect his blood report and parked his cycle in the free stand and when he came out after collecting the report after an hour, he saw that two persons were breaking the lock of the cycle and when he raised alarm, both these persons ran with the cycle and upon alarm, the persons around, chased those two persons and caught them. When they were asked, they revealed their name as Khaithu Ansari and Lukman Ansari and the cycle was also recovered and the tools for breaking the lock was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.

¶25

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 379 / 411 of IPC and after considering the evidences on record, the learned trail court convicted both the apprehended persons for offence under Section 379 / 411 of IPC. The appeal filed by both the convicts was also dismissed.

¶26

This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after considering the materials on record and there is no scope for reconsideration of the evidences and coming to different findings as there is no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the conviction of the accused persons, out of them one has expired during the pendency of the present case.

¶27

Accordingly, the conviction of the surviving petitioner is upheld. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on the point of sentence. This Court finds that the present matter is of the year 2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of incident. The State has also filed counter affidavit pursuant to the order passed by this Court indicating that the surviving petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The fact also remains that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than three months, out of the total period of six months. This Court finds that the petitioner has

¶28

¶29

faced the criminal for a very long time and accordingly the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence of the petitioner is modified with some fine amount.

¶30

Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified and is confined to the period already undergone in judicial custody with a fine of Rs.500/- only, which is to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of two months from the date of communication of this Judgment to the learned court below. If the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, he will serve the sentence awarded by the learned court below. If the amount is deposited, the petitioner as well as the bailers will be discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.

¶31

This criminal revision is disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶32

Le the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.

¶33

The pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of as not pressed.

¶34

Let the order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX / e-mail.

¶35

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶36

R.Kumar/

Khaitu Ansari and Another v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaitu Ansari and Another v. the 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

Prakash Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Mahatha Vs State of Jharkhand

Dharam Munda And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Shiv Prasad Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gorka Paswan and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gour Rana Vs State of Jharkhand