Conviction for armed robbery of Rs.5,41,000 from a petrol pump was challenged in revision. The informant-victim identified the petitioner and the seized looted money was recovered. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1498 of 2016
Md. Alam Ansari son of Md. Badruddin Ansari, Resident of VillageRasuldih, P.S.- Balrampur, District Purulia (W.B.)
… … Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Amicus For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special. P.P.
06 /18.09.2024
Heard the learned Amicus Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
1. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 05.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, SeraikellaKharsawan in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2015 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Seraikella, in G.R No.709 of 2014 (T.R. No.08 of 2015) has been affirmed. The learned trial convicted the petitioner under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years.
2. The learned Amicus submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, but the evidence of PW-3, who was a seizure witness, has not been properly appreciated. She has submitted that the seizure witness has not supported the case fully.
3. The learned Amicus further submitted that the seizure witness in his cross-examination has stated that at the time of seizure, he was not present although he has admitted his signature on the seizure list. The learned Amicus also submitted that there are altogether seven witnesses. PW-2 is the informant of the case and PW-7 is the investigating officer. The learned Amicus has submitted that on the account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is called for interference.
1
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that the informant has fully supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel has submitted that the confessional statement of the petitioner was also recorded and on the basis of his confession, the money of Rs. 2,70,000/- was recovered from the house of the co-accused.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court finds that as per the case of the prosecution, fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by ASI on 15.07.2015 at 13:00 hours. It was alleged that on 15.07.2014 at about 12:30 PM, the informant was at his Jyotsana Automobile Petrol Pump and he was preparing to deposit money in the bank. In the meantime, two unknown persons came there and on the point of pistol, they captured his staff namely, Pran Krishna Mahato and entered into his office. On the point of pistol, they took away Rs.5,41,000/- and mobile set having SIM Nos. 7762842709 and 963527688. It was further alleged that the mobile set bearing SIM Nos. 9122810062 and 8252680195 of his staff namely, Pran Krishna Mahato was also taken away. One person was standing outside in an Apache motorcycle and after committing robbery and closing them in the room, all the three persons fled away. On raising alarm, the other staff open the door. The Informant further stated that he had seen all the three miscreants through the widow and on seeing them, he can identify them.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan, the case was registered as Nimdih P.S. Case No. 30 of 2014 dated 15.07.2014 under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against three unknown miscreants. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.33/2014 dated 10.09.2014 was submitted against the petitioner keeping investigation continue against the co-accused persons namely, Md. Wazir Ansari and Md. Jasim Ansari. Cognizance of the offence under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken on 11.09.2014. Thereafter, on 30.01.2015, charge under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the
2
petitioner which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1 is Maheshwar Datta, PW-2 is Shyamal Kumar Mandal who is the informant of the case, PW-3 is Krishna Kumar who is a seizure list witness of recovery of Rs.2,70,000/-, PW-4 is Barun Kumar Mahato who was staff of Petrol Pump, PW-5 Uday Kumar who was also staff of Petrol Pump, PW-6 is Pran Krishna Mahato and PW-7 is Tuleshwar Prasad Kushwaha who is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited the signature of Shyamal Kumar Mandal on the seizure list of Apache motorcycle as Exhibit-1, signature of Shyamal Kumar Mandal on fardbeyan as Exhibit-2, signature of PW3 on the seizure list of recovery of Rs.2,70,000/-, fardbeyan as Exhibit4, signature of Officer-in-charge, Nimdih P.S. on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-4/1, formal FIR as Exhibit-5, Memo of arrest of the petitioner as Exhibit-6, seizure list of Apache motorcycle and one mobile set as Exhibit-7, confessional statement of the petitioner as Exhibit-8, seizure list of recovery of Rs.2,70,000/- as Exhibit-9 and the currency notes i.e. 1000 x 100, 500 x 300, 100 x 190, 50 x 18, 10 x 10 (Total Rupees Two lac seventy thousand only) as Material Exhibit-1.
8. PW-1 was informed by the Informant about the occurrence. He is hearsay witness. PW-2 is owner of the petrol pump and the informant of the case and he has fully supported the case. He has given every description of the occurrence and the miscreants. He identified his signature on the seizure list of Apache motorcycle as Exhibit-1 and he also identified the petitioner in court and claimed to identify the other two accused persons. PW-3 has identified his signature on the seizure list of recovery of the money. PW-4 is a hearsay witness.
9. PW-5 in his examination-chief deposed that the occurrence took place on 15.07.2014 at about 12 to 12:30 AM, Three persons had come to the petrol pump at Adardih and had taken petrol of Rs.50/- and he had given petrol to them. Two persons had gone towards the bathroom and then he had heard the alarm of the owner Shyamal Kumar Mandal.
3
When he went there, he saw the door shut from outside and Shyamal Kumar Mandal and Pran Krishna Mahato were inside the room. When he opened the door, the Informant told him that after loot of all the amount, the criminals fled away. When he went towards N.H.32, he had seen three miscreants fleeing away. The accused had covered their face. He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the police had enquired him about the occurrence at the police station all the persons working in the petrol pump had gone to the police station.
10. PW-6 is also a staff of the petrol pump and he deposed that the occurrence took place on 15.07.2014 at 01:00 PM at the petrol pump of Adardih. Two persons caught him from behind and forcibly took him to the room and thereafter, they looted the entire money, locked them in the room and fled away. He stated that he cannot identify the miscreants. He has been declared hostile on the point of identification. 11. PW-7 is the Investigating officer of the case. He exhibited the fardbeyan as Exhibit-4, signature of Officer-in-charge, Nimdih P.S. on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-4/1, formal FIR as Exhibit-5, Memo of arrest of the petitioner as Exhibit-6, seizure list of Apache motorcycle and one mobile set as Exhibit-7, confessional statement of the petitioner as Exhibit-8, seizure list of recovery of Rs.2,70,000/- as Exhibit-9 and the currency notes i.e. 1000 x 100, 500 x 300, 100 x 190, 50 x 18, 10 x 10 (Total Rupees Two lac seventy thousand only) as Material Exhibit-1. 12. This Court finds that PW-2 who is victim-owner of the petrol pump and the informant of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and given vivid description of the manner in which the offence was committed and has also identified the petitioner , PW-5 who is an eye witness of the occurrence and PW-7 Investigating Officer of the case have fully supported the case. PW-2 has identified the petitioner in court. PW-6 has also supported the prosecution case, although he has been declared hostile on the point of identification. The prosecution has duly exhibited the seizure lists of the Apache motorcycle and one mobile set and Rs.2,70,000/- recovered from the house of the co-
4
accused namely, Wazir Ansari. The defence has failed to elicit anything during their cross-examination to discredit their evidences. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the evidence of the other seizure list witness as pointed out by the learned Amicus has no bearing in the present case at the stage of revision.
13. This Court finds that the learned trial court has fully considered the materials on record and recorded its findings at Para-7 that the Informant, Investigating Officer and the eye-witnesses-cum-staff of the petrol pump have fully supported the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubts. PW-6 who is staff of the petrol pump was declared hostile on the point of identification of the petitioner, but he has fully supported the prosecution case on the point of date of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence. he further found that Rs.2,70,000/- was recovered and seized from the house of one coaccused namely, Wazir Ansari whose involvement in the occurrence has come on the records of the case. The seized looted amount was also produced in court and has been marked as Material Exhibit-1. The Informant and Investigating Officer has fully supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court further found that date of occurrence 15.07.2014, time of occurrence 12:30 to 01:00 PM, place of occurrence Maa Jyotsana Petrol Pump and the manner of occurrence i.e. lotted Rs.5,41,000/- putting in fear of death to the Informant on the point of pistol and escaped by motorcycle, chased by the police personnel and caught by the police with the help of villagers have been fully proved and established by the prosecution witnesses and by documentary evidence. The learned trial court further recorded at Para-8 that the petitioner has played an active role with the two co-accused persons and the petitioner was caught by the police at the time of trying to escape with the on a bike. The above act was done by the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with rest two persons. The learned trial held that the petitioner is liable for the act of robbery of Rs.5,41,000/- from Maa Jyotsana Petrol pump and convicted him under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5
14. The appellate court also considered the evidence on record and recorded the findings in Paragraph-15 which reads as under:
“ 15. I have scrutinized the entire evidences available on record. After carefully scrutinizing the materials available on record, it appears that on the alleged date and time of the occurrence, the miscreants have committed robbery in the Petrol Pump and they looted about Rs. 5,41,000/- from the owner of the Petrol Pump and thereafter they fled away. The owner of the petrol Pump immediately informed to the police and thereafter, the police started chase of the miscreants and the owner and other staff of the petrol Pump also started chase of the miscreants. Further, the miscreants have been apprehended by the villagers in village Puriala. In the meantime, the police also reached there and one of the miscreants was handed over by the villagers to the police, but two of them have managed to escape from there. Thereafter, the police has seized the motorcycle which was used in commission of the offence and one looted mobile set. Subsequently, during course of investigation, the police raided the house of another accused and recovered Rs. 2,70,000/cash from his house and seized the looted money and that looted money was produced before the court as Mat. Exhibit. The informant and other witnesses have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case. In this way, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence.”
15. This Court finds that the learned courts have considered the materials and recorded their findings on the basis of the materials on record. The scope of revision is very limited and this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference. There is no scope of reappreciation of evidence and come to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction when both the courts have given concurrent findings.
16. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
6
17. The learned counsel for the State has ensured this Court that the respondent State shall take appropriate steps so that the other coaccused also faces the trial, if not already faced. He is not aware as to whether the other co-accused were arrested and they faced the trial.
Appreciation for Amicus Curiae and Payment:
18. Before parting, this Court observes that vide order dated 02.09.2024, Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate was appointed as an amicus in this case by this Court. I record my appreciation for the valuable assistance accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae in final disposal of this case who could prepare in a short period of time and effectively assisted this Court in the matter.
19. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to ensure that the legal remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae is duly paid to her within a period of 4 weeks upon submission of bills by her @ Rs.5,500/- per day subject to the cap of maximum permissible amount.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned and also the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee.
21. Also a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 392/34 IPC for robbery of a petrol pump was sustainable despite the seizure witness not fully supporting the case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Alam Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
