Partly allowed¶23

Ashif Ansari Alias Bhoma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Jun 2024Cr.Rev./318/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Cr. Rev. No. 318 of 2019; decided 27.06.2024 by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary; petitioners Ashif Ansari (@Md. Ashif @Bhoma) and Md. Imran Khan; robbery of informant Vikash Kumar Sah, Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017; Sections 394/411 IPC and Section 313 Cr.P.C.; Section 411 IPC conviction set aside as looted mobile seized from PW8 Md. Abdul (Ext.4/2), not from accused; dual conviction under Sections 394 and 411 impermissible; Section 394 conviction upheld on dock identification by PW2; Criminal Revision stands rejected (partly_allowed); advocates J.N. Upadhyay and Pankaj Kumar (P.P.).

What did the court decide?

Judgment under Section 411 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 394 IPC upheld, with the court stating that the Criminal Revision stands rejected. ¶23

Ashif Ansari Alias Bhoma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment under Section 411 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 394 IPC upheld, with the court stating that the Criminal Revision stands rejected.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether conviction of the petitioners under both Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable, given that the allegedly looted mobiles were not seized or recovered from the petitioners. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

PW8's deposition is only additional corroborative circumstantial evidence of complicity (the witness deposed the mobile was sold to him by Md. Imran) and cannot itself prove the Section 411 offence; further, a person can be convicted either under Section 394 or 411 IPC but not under both sections.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Section 411 IPC is not made out against the petitioners because the looted mobile was not seized from them; on the contrary, it was seized from Md. Abdul (examined as PW8), with the seizure list proved and marked as Ext.4/2.

¶20

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the judgment (conviction) passed under Section 411 of I.P.C. is set aside.ratio¶22
As regards Section 394 IPC, no infirmity or illegality is found in the order of conviction passed by both courts below: the petitioners were identified in dock by the victim (PW2), and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. Rev. No. 318 of 2019 (Jharkhand HC, decided 27.06.2024, Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary): Criminal revision by Ashif Ansari and Md. Imran Khan against conviction under Sections 394/411 IPC affirmed in appeal (judgment dated 16.02.2019, Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2018, Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur). Court held the Section 411 IPC conviction unsustainable because the looted mobile was not seized from the petitioners but from Md. Abdul (PW8), the seizure list being proved as Ext.4/2, and held that a person can be convicted either under Section 394 or 411 IPC but not under both; the judgment under Section 411 IPC was set aside, PW8's deposition being treated only as corroborative circumstantial evidence of complicity. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the Section 394 conviction, which rested on dock identification of the petitioners by the victim (PW2), the court upheld the conviction and order of sentence; the Criminal Revision stands rejected, the order operating as a partial modification of the impugned judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 318 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Ashif Ansari @ Md. Ashif @ Bhoma

¶5

Md. Imran Khan @ Imran Khan … …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

----For the Petitioners : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

¶8

Oral Order

¶9

11 / Dated : 27.06.2024

¶10

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2018 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 394/411 of Indian Penal Code.

¶11

FIR is the fardbeyan of Vikash Kumar Sah, recorded in T.M.H emergency ward on 23.04.2017 at 16:30 hours. It was stated by him that he was working as a Cash Assistant in private company for last four years. On 23.04.2017 after collecting the dues of the company, he was going on motorcycle No. JH-17-D-3753 at 11:40 hours in the day time when he was overtaken by one motorcycle. Two young men in the motorcycle intercepted him and attempted to snatch his cash bag and, in that process, he was inflicted with injury by knife. Both of them after snatching the mobile fled away on the motorcycle. The informant was injured and admitted in the hospital where his statement was recorded.

¶12

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017 was registered under Section 394 of I.P.C. against some unknown persons. Police on investigation submitted charge sheet against Ashif Ansari and Imran Khan who were put on trial under Sections 394/411 of I.P.C.

¶13

Altogether 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the informant P.W.2 and the informant identified the accused persons in DOCK. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence is of ignorance, apart from the oral evidence. Relevant documents including the injury report and the seizure list of the mobile have also been adduced into evidence.

¶14

Learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons which has been affirmed in appeal.

¶15

Criminal revision petition is preferred on the ground that the conviction under both

¶16

Sections 394 and 411 of I.P.C. is not sustainable. There is no evidence that allegedly looted mobiles were seized or recovered from these petitioners.

¶17

The manner of proof and identification of the mobile also suffers from vital errors and infirmity. It has been deposed by the informant in his disposition that only one mobile was put on test identification parade which was identified by him.

¶18

It is argued that the mobile was not made a material Ext. or produced before the Court. Learned Trial Court has noted criminal antecedent of the petitioners, however, in most of the cases, they have been acquitted and there is no evidence of past conviction.

¶19

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that it has come in the crossexamination that the informant had been given an opportunity to identify the accused in the police station.

¶20

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that Section 411 of Indian Penal Code will not be made out against the petitioners for the reason that the looted mobile was not seized from the petitioners. On the contrary, the evidence is that the said mobile was seized from one Md. Abdul who has been examined as PW8 and the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.4/2.

¶21

The deposition of PW8 can be treated as an additional corroborative circumstantial evidence regarding complicity of the accused persons in the said robbery but this by itself cannot be proved under Section 411 of I.P.C., as this witness has deposed that the mobile had been sold to him by from Md. Imran. Furthermore, a person can be convicted either for the offence under Section 394 or 411 of I.P.C. but he cannot be convicted under both sections.

¶22

Under the circumstance, the judgment passed under Section 411 of I.P.C. is set aside.

¶23

As far as Section 394 of I.P.C. is concerned, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order of conviction passed by both the courts below. The petitioners were identified in dock by the victim who was examined as PW2. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and, accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands rejected.

¶24

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶25

AKT/Satayendra

¶26

Uploaded

Ashif Ansari Alias Bhoma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashif Ansari Alias Bhoma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhad

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Dutiya Singh Alias Bhaula Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hari Ram Gope Vs State of Jharkhand