This criminal revision maintained a conviction of the petitioners for robbery. The single judge rejected the revision petitions, upholding the concurrent findings of guilt made by the trial and appellate courts.
The criminal revision application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. Revision No.311 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 311 of 2011
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Petitioners : M/s. P. K. Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s. A. K. Dey, A.P.P.
C.A.V. on 13.06.2023 Pronounced on 10.11.2023
1. Heard the Parties
2. The petitioners have filed this application against the judgment dated 23.03.2011 passed by Sri D.N. Upadhyay, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad (As his lordship was then) in Cr. Appeal No. 225 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2010, passed by Sri K.K. Jha, learned J.M.F.C, Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 2915 of 2009 holding the petitioners guilty of offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the said offence alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were further directed to undergo imprisonment for 3 months.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant Md. Farukh, Manager of Gangotri Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Phusbangla, alleging therein that on 10.09. 2009 at about 06:15 p.m. He alongwith his four other staffs Kajal, Sandeep, Sunil and Manoj were present in the office, when two unknown persons entered there and asked them to show L.G.
Cr. Revision No.311 of 2011 2
mobile phones. The informant told them that they have closed their businesses for the day and they should come on the next day. In the meantime, one person who was standing outside entered there and drew a pistol. Accused persons looted Rs. 77,863/- which was the sale proceeds of that day alongwith 15 L.G. mobile phone sets. The informant has given physical description of the accused persons.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
5. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. Ram Narayan Choudhary P.W.7 is the investigating officer of this case. He has stated that on 07.11.2009 at about 8:30 P.M., on the basis of confidential information, the petitioner Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra @ Chunnu Mishra @ Sudhanshu Kr. Mishra and one Rajkumar Singh were arrested. The petitioner Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra @ Chunnu Mishra @ Sudhanshu Kr. Mishra confessed his guilt in the present case and stated that he alongwith the petitioner Shakti Bauri had committed the offence. On the basis of his confidential information, the petitioner Shakti Bauri was apprehended. On the pointing out of Shakti Bauri Rs. 3,000/- and a mobile phone of LG company was recovered from his house. He has proved the seizure list which is Ext.-3.
6. Both the petitioners were put on Test Identification Parade. Surendra Nath Mishra P.W.6 is a Judicial Magistrate who had conducted the test identification parade. He has proved the Test Identification Parade which is Ext.-2. He has stated that the informant Md. Farukh has identified both the petitioners Shakti Bauri and Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra @ Chunnu Mishra @ Sudhanshu Kr. Mishra during the test identification parade. The informant Md. Farukh has been examined as P.W.5. He has supported his case as made out in the written report and has stated that he was the manager of Gangotri Marketing Private Company
Cr. Revision No.311 of 2011 3
Ltd. and on 10.09.2009 at about 06:15 p.m., he was present in the office alongwith Sunil, Sandeep, Kajal and Manoj when a person came there and wanted to purchase L.G. mobile phone, he was told that the shop was closed and he should come on the next day. In the meantime another person with a pistol came there and both the accused persons looted Rs77863/- from him. They also took away 5 mobile phones from there. He has identified both the petitioners in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is working as a Manager in Gangotri Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd., since long time he gets rupees 4,000/- by way of salary.
7. It further appears that the looted amount of Rs. 77863/- was the sale proceeds of that day. The witnesses Kajal Chakraborty P.W.1., Sunil Kumar Balmiki P.W.2 and Sandeep Kumar Bhagat P.W.4 are staffs of Gangotri Marketing Pvt. Co. Ltd. They have supported the case of the informant Md. Farukh and has stated that on 10.09.2009 at about 6:15 p.m., two unknown persons committed robbery in their shop. They took away Rs.77863/- and 15 mobile phones from their shop. All these witnesses have identified the petitioners in the dock.
8. Kajal Chakraborty P.W.1 stated in her cross-examination that at the time of occurrence, there were five staff members present in the shop. Sunil Kumar Balmiki P.W.2 has stated in his crossexamination that he was working in Gangotri Marketing Pvt. Co. ltd. since the year 2007. Sandeep Kumar Bhagat P.W.4 has stated in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on the next date of the occurrence. He has further stated that the accused persons had entered into shop one after another.
9. From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires from the test identification parade chart which is the Ext.-2 that the informant Md. Farukh has identified both these petitioners in the said test identification parade. It further appears from the perusal of the seizure list is which is Ext.-
Cr. Revision No.311 of 2011
4
recovered from the house of the petitioner Shakti Bauri.
10. From the aforesaid facts; it is apparent that both these petitioners were identified as the accused persons who had committed robbery in the premises of the informant Md. Farukh by the informant himself in test identification parade. They have also been identified in the dock by all the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence. Some of the looted amount and looted mobile phone was recovered from the house of the petitioner Shakti Bauri.
11. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioners for the offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. Both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have rightly come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.
13. This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
14 . Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh Uploaded
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution evidence is capable of sustaining a conviction for robbery under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakti Bauri
Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra
The State of Jharkhand
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court