Partly allowed

Budhiya Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./945/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of three petitioners for theft and mischief but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in custody, enhanced the fine to Rs.5,000 each, and directed an additional fine for victims, noting the protracted delay in the criminal trial.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine increased to Rs.5,000 per offence per petitioner.

Budhiya Singh and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.945 of 2012

¶4

¶5

Budhiya Singh, S/o Late Ramdhan Singh

¶6

Dayal Singh, S/o Late Ramdhan Singh

¶7

Gopal Singh, S/o Late Hadam Singh All residents of village- Bankata, P.O. – Koimi, P.S. Bahragora, Dist. – East Singhbhum ……. Petitioners -Versus -

¶8

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the Opp. Party State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Advocate

¶11

Through Video Conferencing

¶12

6/ 03.09.2021

¶13

Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the opposite party-State.

¶15

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.04.2008 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila, in G.R. Case No.377 of 1998 / T.R. No.196 of 2008, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 144 and 379/34 of IPC. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years for offence under section 144 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under section 379 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine , they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. Learned court below has also directed for payment of Rs.3,000/- each to the informant as compensation and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶16

The petitioners have also challenged the appellate Courts’ judgment dated 5.08.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Ghatshila in Cr. Appeal No.80 of 2008, whereby the judgment

¶17

¶18

and sentence passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila has been affirmed.

¶19

Arguments of the petitioners

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing the arguments submitted that there is allegation of theft of paddy crop valued maximum at Rs.12,000/-, though different witnesses have given different version, so far as the value of paddy crop is concerned. He submits that there was land dispute between the parties, which led to the alleged occurrence and considering this aspect of the matter, the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as they have been falsely implicated. He submits that the paddy crop was also not seized and accordingly the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶21

Without prejudiced to the aforesaid submissions on merit, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the FIR is dated 5.11.1998 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 9.04.2008 by the learned trial court and at the time of conviction, the age of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 was 50, 45 and 35 years respectively and accordingly, their present age is 63, 58 ad 48 years respectively. He submits that the petitioners have faced the rigor of criminal case for about 22 years and they do not have any criminal antecedent and accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified.

¶22

Arguments of the opposite party-State

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the materials on record and there are enough materials produced from the side of prosecution regarding right, title, interest and possession over the property in favour of the informant and apart from making the oral statement that there was land dispute between the parties, no document as such was produced from the side of defence, to claim any right, title, interest and possession over the property. He submits that considering the facts and circumstance of this case, there is enough materials to show that the land in question was in possession of the informant party and they had grown paddy crop, but the same was forcibly taken away by the accused persons and they had come to the place of occurrence armed with bow and arrow and accordingly, they have been convicted for

¶24

¶25

offence under Sections 144 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal code. She submits that the impugned judgment of conviction does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. So far as sentence is concerned, learned APP has submitted that it is for the Court to take an appropriate decision in the matter.

¶26

Findings of the Court

¶27

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that as per the prosecution story, the accused persons, who are petitioners before this Court, on 5.11.1998 had committed theft of paddy crop from plot No.2596 and 2597, area of 1.34 decimal and 1.32 decimal respectively, which is claimed by the informant. It was alleged that the petitioners after forcefully harvesting the crop, had taken away the same to their house and it was specific case of the informant that he has been cultivating the said land for last many years. After the occurrence, the informant went to the concerned police station and the case was instituted as Bahragora P.S. Case No.86 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No.377 of 1998 for offence under Section 144 and 379/34 of IPC. The investigating officer of the case duly investigated the place of occurrence and submitted the charge-sheet under the same sections against the petitioners and the charges were framed also under the said sections, to which, the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶28

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and they alleged false implication and claiming to be innocent, however, the defence neither led to any oral nor any documentary evidence in support of their case.

¶29

In support of prosecution case, altogether six witnesses were examined. So far as PW – 1 is concerned, he was declared hostile; however, in his examination in chief, he has simply stated that the occurrence had taken place about 8 to 9 years before.

¶30

PW – 2 has fully supported the prosecution case and he has stated that the incident is of about 7 to 7 ½ years old and at the time of occurrence, he had seen that the paddy, which was sown by the informant party, was cut and taken away by the accused persons. He has also stated that the informant side has been growing crop on the field for last 40 to 45 years and he has valued the crop to the extent of rupees five to six thousand. This witness has also claimed to identify the accused persons and has

¶31

¶32

stated that he had given his statement to the police. He is the eyewitness to the occurrence.

¶33

PW – 3 is the informant and also the eyewitness of the incident and has also fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that on 5.11.1998 at about 11 am, when he had gone to his field to see the crop, he saw that the petitioners were cutting the crop and when objection was raised, the petitioners threatened him with bow and arrow and thereafter PW – 3 went to Bahragora police station along with his uncle Diwarkar Sao. This witness has also stated that the field was purchased by him in the year 1962-64 from Santobala Das and since then, the same is in his possession and he has been sowing the paddy crop on the same. He has valued the crop, which was taken away by the petitioners to the extent of Rs.12000/-. He has stated that Jagatpati Nandi and Sardar Singh had seen the petitioners cutting the crop. He has claimed to identify all the accused persons. This witness has been fully cross-examined. Being the informant of the case, he has fully supported the prosecution case against the petitioners, who had come at the place of occurrence, armed with bow and arrow and had cut the paddy crop of the informant, which information was given to the police and the police came to the place of occurrence, but the paddy was not seized by the police. The evidence of the informant P.W-3 shows that he is the eye-witness of the occurrence. 13. So far as PW – 4 is concerned, he has also supported the prosecution case and he has stated that his uncle Diwakar Sao and his cousin brother had sown the paddy crops and he had seen 10 to 15 persons cutting the crop and were taking away and then the present petitioners, who were three in number, had come and threatened the informant party, tried to forbid them from cutting the crop, but informant party were threatened. He has given the description of place of occurrence and has stated that the value of the paddy, which was cut by the petitioners, was around worth Rs.10 to 12 thousand. He has also supported the fact about the purchase of the field in question by the informant party on 6^th August 1962. The two sale deeds were exhibited as Ext. – 1 and 2. He has also exhibited the documents relating to mutation of the land involved in this case and also exhibited the rent receipts. He has also stated that in connection with the place of occurrence, there was proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and one R.P. Case was instituted, which was decided in favour of the informant party. He has stated that the police had recorded his statement. He claimed to identify the petitioners. He

¶34

¶35

has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the paddy was being cut, but when the police reached the place of occurrence, they did not seize the stolen paddy. He has stated that around 10 to 15 persons were jointly cutting the paddy and valued the paddy crop around rupees 10 to 12 thousand. This witness has also been fully cross-examined and he has supported the prosecution case that the informant of the case namely Diwakar Singh has purchased the property in the year 1962-64 by way of registered sale deed, and marked as Ext. -1 and 2, for which mutation was also done and he was paying rent and mutation documents including rent receipts were also exhibited. This witness has fully supported the prosecution case and is also an eyewitness to the occurrence.

¶36

PW – 5 has also supported the prosecution case and is also the eyewitness to the occurrence and he has specifically taken name of the three petitioners and has mentioned that other persons were also there and they were cutting the paddy crop from the field. He has stated that the petitioners were armed with bow and arrow. He has described the place of occurrence and stated that he had given his statement to the police. He has also stated that the police had come, but the paddy was not seized and the value of the stolen paddy was to the extent of Rs.11,000/-.

¶37

PW – 6 is the investing officer of the case and has also supported the prosecution case right from filing of the FIR and recording the statement of the witnesses including the informant, visiting to the place of occurrence and mentioned the details of the place of occurrence. He has also stated that he had seen that the paddy crop was already cut and he was informed that that the petitioners had cut the paddy crop and taken away. He has stated that he searched the house of the petitioners on 5.11.1998 and none of the petitioners were found. He had seen the various documents, on the basis of which the informant was claiming right, title, interest and possession over the land. He has also stated that after completion the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.

¶38

Learned trial court after considering the materials on record, found that there was consistent evidence on record in support of the prosecution case that the petitioners had come to the place of occurrence armed with bow and arrow along with others and had cut the paddy crop of the informant, which was claimed to be valued at Rs.11,000/- by the informant. In this background the case, learned trial court convicted the

¶39

¶40

petitioners under Sections 144 and 379/34 of the IPC by a reasoned judgement and sentenced the petitioners accordingly.

¶41

Learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and recorded its findings at para 5 of the impugned judgment and was of the view that the learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the alleged offences. The appellate court held that the petitioners had taken law in their hands and forcibly harvested the paddy from the land of the informant.

¶42

This Court finds that both the learned courts below have considered the materials on record and the informant of the case was himself one of the eye-witnesses of the incident along with other eye-witnesses as discussed above. There are sufficient materials on record to prove that it was the informant party, who had sown the paddy crop, but the same was cut and taken way by the petitioners, who had come to the place of occurrence armed with bow and arrow along with other persons, threatened the informant party and forcibly took away the paddy crop. 19. Learned courts below have also considered the various documentary evidence produced from the side of the prosecution witnesses to come to the conclusion that the property was in possession of the informant and he had sown the paddy crop. On the other hand, the defence neither lead any evidence nor any document was produced to show any right, title, interest or possession over the property.

¶43

So far as non-recovery of stolen paddy is concerned, it has come in the evidence of the investigating officer of the case that he had conducted raid in the house of the petitioners but the petitioners were not found and, in such circumstances, recovery of the stolen paddy could not be made. However non recovery of the stolen paddy has no bearing in the matter as the case is supported by eye-witnesses of the occurrence who have fully supported the prosecution case and have proved the case against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts. The basic ingredients of the alleged offence under section 144/379/34 IPC have been proved by the prosecution. Considering the aforesaid findings, the conviction of the petitioners for offence under section 144 and 379/34 of IPC does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

¶44

This Court finds that there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below leading to conviction of the petitioners. There is no scope of reappreciation of the evidences on record and come

¶45

¶46

to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgements. 22. So far as conviction of the petitioners is concerned, the sentence appears to be on the higher side and the fact remains that no previous case or conviction of the petitioners have been brought on record. The incident is of the year 1998 and accordingly about 22 years have elapsed from the date of incident and the petitioners have faced the criminal case for a long time. The records of the case indicates that the petitioners have remained in custody for some days at the stage of filing this revision petition and were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 13.12.2012. The revision was filed on 09.11.2012 and at the time of filing the revision petition the petitioners were in jail custody. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court is of the considered view that sentence is required to be modified to some extent to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone in judicial custody with fine of Rs.5000/- each for offence under section 144 IPC and fine of Rs.5000/- each for offence under section 379/34 of IPC. This is over and above the amount of Rs. 3000/- each as victim compensation to be given to the informant as directed by the learned court below. The aforesaid amount of fine as well as victim compensation is directed to be deposited by the petitioners before the learned court below within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. In case of nondeposit of the aforesaid amount, the bail bond furnished by the petitioners will be immediately cancelled by the learned court below and the petitioners would serve the sentence imposed by the learned court below. The aforesaid amount of victim compensation as well as 20% of the aforesaid fine amount is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case after due identification.

¶47

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶48

Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the court concerned.

¶49

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/e-mail.

¶50

R.Kumar

¶51

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Budhiya Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhiya Singh 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

Prabhu Bhuian Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Azad Alias Azad and Others Vs the State of Jahrkhand

Salim Ansari Alias MD Salim Mistri and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand through S P C B I Dhanbad

Azim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Dr.Abha Rani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.