Dismissed

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./821/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed two criminal revision applications preferred by accused persons against convictions and sentences for robbery and theft. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings based on the recovery of looted property from the petitioners' possession and their apprehension at the spot.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Applications Cr. Rev. No. 821 of 2010 and Cr. Rev. No. 787 of 2010 are dismissed.

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. Revision No.821 of 2010 With Cr. Revision No.787 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 821 of 2010

¶3

Awadhesh Sharma @ Awadhesh Kumar Sharma

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶7

WITH

¶8

Cr. Revision No. 787 of 2010

¶9

Babu Bhuiyan … … Petitioner Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶10

¶11

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : M/s. P. K. Dubey, Advocate (In Cr. Rev No. 821/10) : M/s. S. P. Sinha, Advocate (In Cr. Rev No. 787/10) For the State : M/s. P. D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.

¶14

(In both the cases)

¶15

¶16

05/09.08.2023

¶17

1. Heard the Parties.

¶18

2 . Both these revision applications arise out of a common judgment. Accordingly, both these applications are being disposed of by a common order.

¶19

3. The petitioner Awadhesh Sharma @ Awadhesh Kumar Sharma (in Cr. Revision No. 821 of 2010) and petitioner Babu Bhuiyan (in Cr. Revision No. 787 of 2010) have preferred these applications against the judgment dated 27.07.2010, passed by Sri Satyendra Kr. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 56/2010 and in Criminal Appeal No. 59/2010 filed by the petitioners, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge Palamau at Daltonganj, partly allowed the appeal of these petitioners by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and setting

¶20

Cr. Revision No.787 of 2010 2

¶21

Cr. Revision No.821 of 2010 With

¶22

aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Sri S.P. Dubey, learned S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with G. R. No. 1950/2008 arising out of Sadar (Town) P. S. Case No. 435/2008, holding the petitioners guilty of offences under sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 3 years alongwith a fine of rupees 1,000/- for the offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine the petitioners were further directed to undergo S.I. for 1 month and R.I. for 2 years for the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period undergone by the petitioners were ordered to be set off.

¶23

4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant Triveni Prasad Yadav, alleging therein that on 12.11.2008 at about 05:45 P.M., he was going to Daltonganj on his motorcycle bearing registration number JH-03-A-5197, when he reached near Gurihai village, 2 persons intercepted him and looted his mobile phone, Rs.300/- and a motorcycle. On his alarm, the police party reached there, the miscreants were chased and apprehended. On search the looted motorcycle, mobile phone and 310 rupees were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

¶24

5. The apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Babu Bhuiyan and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma who are petitioners in the aforesaid criminal revision applications.

¶25

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.

¶26

Triveni Prasad Yadav P.W.1 has supported the allegation made in the written report to the extent that on 12.11.2008 at about 05:45

¶27

Cr. Revision No.821 of 2010 With Cr. Revision No.787 of 2010 3

¶28

P.M., two persons had robbed him and took away his motorcycle, mobile phone and Rs 300/-. In his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot identify the accused persons.

¶29

A.S.I., Satyam Kumar P.W.7 is the police officer who was present near the place of occurrence. He has stated that on 12.11. 2008 on hulla, when he went to the place of occurrence, he came to know that the informant was looted by 2 persons who had decamped away with his motorcycle, mobile phone and Rs. 300. The miscreants were chased and both the petitioners were apprehended and on search looted motorcycle, looted mobile phone and Rs 310/- were recovered from their possession. They revealed their names to be Babu Bhuiyan and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma. He has stated that seizure list was prepared at the spot in presence of the independent witnesses regarding the recovery of aforesaid articles. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.- 2. He has identified both the miscreants in the dock.

¶30

7. Sawan Khariya P.W. 6 is the investigating officer of this case he has proved the place of occurrence which is on the road between Pokhara and Panki. He has stated that the looted articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioners who were apprehended at the spot. He has proved the formal F.I.R. he has further stated that the apprehended miscreants disclosed their names to be Babu Bhuiyan and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma.

¶31

8. From the perusal of the seizure list, it transpires that on 12.11.2008 at about 06:15 p.m., looted motorcycle bearing registration number JH-03A-5197, mobile phone and Rs. 310/alongwith another motorcycle which was used by the petitioners for committing this offence was recovered from their possession. Both these petitioners were handed over a copy of the seizure list.

¶32

9. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that both the petitioners were apprehended at the spot just after the occurrence and the looted articles were recovered from their possession. Accordingly, both the learned trial court as well as

¶33

Cr. Revision No.821 of 2010 With

¶34

Cr. Revision No.787 of 2010 4

¶35

the learned appellate court have come to a correct finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners for the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶36

10. These Criminal Revision Applications are dismissed.

¶37

11. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶39

Saurabh Uploaded

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma 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

Sikandar Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chittaranjan Kewat Vs Agriculture Department

Premanand Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Kunal Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand