Dismissed

Shiv Kumar v. Union of India

Jharkhand HC10 Nov 2023Cr.Rev./219/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the findings of guilt under the CRPF Act for accused who plundered a kiosk after drinking. The bench rejected the claim of prejudice caused by the trial officer acting as both judge and prosecutor, finding the procedure compliant and the accused's guilt established. The appeal to change the sentence was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Application dismissed; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Shiv Kumar Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 219 of 2010

¶4

Shiv Kumar

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus -

The Union of India

... … Opposite Party

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate : M/s. Om Prakash, Advocate For the UOI : M/s. Anil Kumar, ASGI.

¶13

C.A.V. on 10.07.2023 Pronounced on 10.11.2023

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated 06.05.2008, passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 89 of 2000, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by affirming the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant B/106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur, whereby and wherein the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of offence under section 10 (n) of the C.R.P.F. Act 1949 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The learned appellate court modified the sentence of the petitioner by extending the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act by releasing him after due admonition.

¶16

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint filed by the company commander of B Company of B/106 RAF CRPF Sundarnagar at Jamshedpur before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant B/106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur against the petitioner Shiv kumar and co-accused Durgalal Meena alleging therein that on 07.05.2000 at about 09:30 p.m., while they were posted at B/106 Sundarnagar Jamshedpur, they went to the market and after consuming liquor, while they were

¶17

¶18

returning, they forcibly broke open the kiosk of one Rakesh Kumar Jha situated near the campus area and committed theft of various articles. They brought the stolen articles to the camp and concealed the same in a tent and some of the articles in a D.C.M. Toyota vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1-LA-4222. On 08.05.2000., the owner of the shop made a complainant before R. S. Pokharia, Deputy Commandant and one Krishna Rawat and expressed his suspicion that someone from the CRPF camp had committed theft in his kiosk. On enquiry it transpired that the petitioner and coaccused had committed theft of articles and Rs. 3500/- from the shop of Rakesh Kumar Jha. When confronted, the accused persons produced the stolen articles before their superior. Accordingly, this complaint was filed.

¶19

The petitioner has confessed his guilt at the time of framing of charge, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant B/106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur, who after recording the plea of guilt of the petitioner, went on to record evidence, both oral and documentary.

¶20

On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶21

Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant B/106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur had recorded the evidence both as a judge as well as being a prosecutor which has caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioner. It was further submitted that both learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have relied upon the confession of the petitioner which is a very weak piece of evidence. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision passed in Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo versus Union of India and others passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7962 of 2011 by Patna High Court. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment reported in A.I.R. (34) 1947 privy

¶22

¶23

Council 67 .

¶24

Mr. Anil Kumar learned ASGI, has submitted that as per the procedure laid down for trial under the C.R.P.F Act 1949. There is no provision for appointment of a separate prosecutor. This is a common procedure being followed in all the cases under the aforesaid fact. It was submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and has produced stolen articles before his superior. It was further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was prayed that this revision application be dismissed.

¶25

From the perusal of the record, it appears that on 24.05.2000, charge was explained to the petitioner and co-accused Durgalal Meena. Both the petitioner and the co-accused pleaded guilty. However, after recording their plea of guilt, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant 106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur did not pass the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, but went on to record the evidence of the witnesses. Rakesh Kumar Jha, the shop owner in whose shop theft has been committed has been examined as PW1. He has supported the fact that on 08.05.2000 between 08:00 to 09:00 p.m., when he went to his shop, he found that his shop was vandalized and articles worth Rs. 3500/- were stolen from there. He has further stated that the Krishna Rawat had given him Rs.3500/- and as such his grievance has been addressed and he has got no complaint against anybody. Krishna Rawat has been examined as P.W.2, he has stated that on 08.05.2000, he came to know that theft was committed in the shop of Rakesh Kumar Jha, on the same evening HC/Dvr Ravinder Singh came to him along with the petitioner. They confessed before him in drunken state that they had vandalized the shop of Rakesh Kumar Jha and they also gave Rs. 3500/- to compensate the loss of the shop owner and requested him to hush-up the case. HC/Dvr Ravinder Singh has been examined as P.W.3, he has stated that at the instance of Krishna Rawat he started checking the vehicles and

¶26

¶27

found that some of the stolen articles were kept in DCM Toyota vehicle bearing registration number DL-1-LA-4222. He inquired about the matter from the petitioner and co-accused. They confessed their guilt. S.D. Tripathy, P.W.4 is the complainant, he has supported the averment made in the complaint petition. He has stated that stolen articles were recovered from the DCM Toyota vehicle bearing registration number DL-1-LA-4222 and some of the articles were recovered from a tent concealed beneath a quilt. He has proved the written report which is Ext.- 3. He has also proved the confessional statement of the petitioner and co-accused which was marked as Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 respectively. He has finally proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.- 4. P. K. Poddar P.W.5 has stated that on 10.05.2000, he had brought the petitioner and co- accused before the complainant S.D. Tripathy and in his presence both the accused persons had confessed their guilt. Surendra Kumar Singh P.W.6, Ct Jarnail Singh P.W.7 has stated that the stolen articles were recovered in their presence. Rohtas Singh Ct/Dvr P.W.8, has supported the prosecution case and has stated as to how the involvement of the petitioner and co-accused had surfaced and both of them had confessed in a drunken state that they had committed the occurrence.

¶28

From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that they have corroborated each other on the point that the petitioner and co-accused had confessed their guilt before their superiors and the petitioner and co-accused had signed the confession admitting of committing theft in a drunken state, in the shop of Rakesh Kumar Jha. On their pointing out, stolen articles were recovered from a vehicle. It further appears that at the time of framing of charge, when the charge was being explained to the petitioner and co-accused, they had pleaded guilty.

¶29

Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that much prejudice has been caused to the case of the petitioner. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

¶30

¶31

Commandant 106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur has very profoundly conducted the trial. Had he been biased he could have held the petitioner and co-accused guilty and sentenced them accordingly at the very instance when the petitioner and co-accused had pleaded guilty at the time of framing of charge, instead of doing so the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant 106Bn. RAF, CRPF , Jamshedpur went on to try the petitioner by recording oral evidence and also bringing documentary evidence on record.

¶32

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case; I am of the opinion that the petitioners have been rightly held guilty for the offence under section 10 (n) of the C.R.P.F. Act and no prejudice has been caused to their case even if the trial court functioned both as judge and prosecutor. It is done as per the procedure of C.R.P.F. Act 1949 that the trial court itself produced their case and examined witnesses.

¶33

Accordingly, I come to a finding that both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have rightly come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under section 10 (n) of the C.R.P.F. Act 1949.

¶34

The learned appellate court has reduced the sentence and extended the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act by releasing the petitioner after due admonition. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court does not require any interference.

¶35

This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶37

Saurabh

¶38

Uploaded

Shiv Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhu Sahu Alias Sukhdeo Prasad Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jeetwahan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ansar Ahmad Alias MD Ansar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shweta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakti Bauri And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Zakrias Tigga Alias Zecharius Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.