Dismissed

Md.Irshad alias Babloo v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Jul 2023Cr.A(SJ)/57/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against conviction under section 394 IPC. Upholding the trial court, it ruled the evidence showed wrongful restraint creating panic/fear of death, sustaining the robbery charge. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the trial court erred.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Md.Irshad alias Babloo Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 57 of 2004

¶4

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2003, passed by the learned Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2000.)

¶5

¶6

Md. Irshad @ Babloo ..… Appellant

¶7

Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Sayed Ramiz Zafar, Amicus. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P

¶12

¶13

16/Dated: 26^th July, 2023

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2003, passed by the learned Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2000, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years.

¶16

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.09.2000 at about 8.45 p.m. the informant was going to Reliance Pharma situated at Azad Basti, passing through Naya Toli, More by his cycle with sale proceed of the medicines and in course of going there, when he reached ahead Naya Toli, Chowk; suddenly two boys came, got his cycle stopped and took out Rs. 1800/- from inner packet of his full pant, the informant identified them in bulb light. After committing robbery both of them started moving towards Langer Toli then informant raised alarm upon which people of nearby arrived there, narrated the occurrence to them and showed the accused who were going after committing robbery.

¶17

4. Mr. Sayed Ramiz Zafar, learned amicus draws attention of this court towards the fact that initially the appellant along with the co-accused were charged for section 307, 394 IPC along with section 27 of the Arms Act, however, the appellants

¶18

¶19

were acquitted from the charge of section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, since no recovery was made. He further submits that since section 394 IPC deals with an offence if any person commits or attempt to commit robbery and voluntarily causes hurt to other person then only the section will be attracted. However, in the instant case no injury report is on record as well as no recovery has been made. Thus, at best the petitioner could have been convicted for the charge under section 379 IPC because even by going through the definition of Section 390 the incident will not come under the definition of robbery, as such the impugned judgment needs interreference.

¶20

He lastly made an alternative argument that at least the sentence of the appellant may be modified for the period undergone.

¶21

5. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court as certainly the informant was put to fear of death and the fact that the appellant is having criminal antecedent and several cases are pending against him, as such no leniency should be granted to the appellant.

¶22

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, it appears that Section 390 deals with a situation when theft is a robbery. For better appreciation section 390 IPC is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶23

“390. Robbery.

¶24

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.

¶25

Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

¶26

When extortion is robbery.

¶27

¶28

Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

¶29

Explanation.—The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”

¶30

7. From perusal of the prosecution case as well as the deposition of P.Ws and the fact that no arms were recovered and as a matter of fact that was the reason that the appellants were acquitted from the charge under section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶31

However, the contention of learned Amicus appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted that it was a not a case of robbery because the prosecution has failed to put forth any documentary or material evidence which can substantiate that the informant was under fear of death. The deposition of the P.Ws which has been conclusively proved by the prosecution clearly transpires that the appellant had wrongfully restrained and committed the offence which created fear of death/hurt in the mind of victim and thus this court is of the view that the learned trial court has not committed an error in convicting the appellant under section 394 IPC, and the same is sustained.

¶32

8. Now coming to the alternative argument of the learned Amicus on the point of sentence, it is necessary to refer an affidavit which has been filed in this case by the State indicating therein that this appellant is a habitual offender and altogether 8 cases of serious offences are pending against him, as such I am not inclined to interfere with the order of sentence either.

¶33

It has been informed that the appellant is on bail, as such he is directed to surrender before the learned trial court

¶34

¶35

to serve rest of the sentence. It goes without saying that the learned trial court and the officer in charge shall do the needful for proper compliance of this order.

¶36

9. As a result, the instant appeal is dismissed.

¶37

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for quantifying the fee of learned Amicus and a copy of this order be also communicated to the court below and to the appellant through the concerned police station.

¶38

11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶39

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶40

Amardeep/

Md.Irshad alias Babloo v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Irshad alias Babloo 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

Santosh Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Binay Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Rahman Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Sayed Imtiyaz Hussain Vs State of Jharkhand

Noth Rath Bage Vs State of Jharkhand