Sonu Alias Sams Tabrej Alias Shamas Tabrej Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No.528 of 2018

Sonu @ Sams Tabrej @ Shamas Tabrej, aged about 24 years, son of Md. Azim @ Ajim, resident of Pathal Road, P.O.+P.S.-Doranda, DistrictRanchi …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P ----------

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

-----

¶7

Order No.08 Dated- 20.06.2024

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The instant Criminal Revision is directed against judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 passed by Shri Shanker Prasad, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018(Trial No.03 of 2018), whereby and whereunder, the appellate court acquitted the petitioner from the offences under section 356 and 382 of IPC, but found the petitioner guilty for the offences under section 411 IPC. The sentence was modified for R.I. of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

¶10

The prosecution story in brief is that on 18.07.2015 at about 1:00 pm, the patrolling party of Argora Police saw a crowd near Makhan Bhog Sweets Shop. On enquiry, one lady namely Mamta Choubey told that two boys riding on a scooty came near Executive Home and snatched golden chain from her neck and started fleeing away. On raising alarm, nearby persons chased the said boys and apprehended one of them, who disclosed his name Sonu @ Shamas Tabrej(petitioner). However, the other accused Md. Wasim succeeded to flee away with the scooty. From the conscious possession of the petitioner, one

¶11

broken piece of golden chain was recovered. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged and seizure list was prepared.

¶12

In course of trial altogether 3 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the victim Mamta Choubey(P.W.1), her husband Sanjay Choubey(P.W.2) and one Suraj Malawar(P.W.3).

¶13

Learned trial court after considering the evidence available on record and hearing arguments of respective parties held the petitioner guilty and sentenced the petitioner which has been upheld and confirmed in the appeal with certain modification.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad both in law and facts The appellate court has misinterpreted the presumption of section 114(a) of Evidence Act. It is further submitted that P.W.3 had recovered broken chain from the possession of the public and not from the petitioner. Petitioner was the part of the crowd at the relevant point of time and no incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that the victim lady has not identified the petitioner as accused whereas, PW.2 was not eye witness to the said occurrence. It is further submitted that petitioner has undergone 3 months imprisonment during investigation and trial. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has never committed any offence. The case was instituted in the year 2015 and 9 years have passed and in this interval, petitioner has not indulged in any other criminal activities.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has

¶16

2

¶17

Criminal Revision No.528 of 2018

¶18

committed theft of a golden chain from the neck of the victim Mamta Choubey and on raising alarm, the petitioner was caught red handed with broken chain of the victim lady. There is no material illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this case. There is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed.

¶19

I have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case, nature of offence committed by the petitioner showing his involvement in commission of theft of golden chain from Mamta Choubey and recovery of the golden chain from the petitioner. It further appears that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has never committed any offence. The case was instituted in the year 2015 and 9 years have passed and in this interval, petitioner has not entered into any other criminal activities. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment passed by learned appellate court of 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- is fit to be reduced to the period already under gone. Under such circumstances, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.

¶20

Pending I.As. if any, is disposed off accordingly.

¶21

10.Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent back for information and needful.

¶22

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Pappu/-

¶24

3

¶25

Criminal Revision No.528 of 2018

Sonu Alias Sams Tabrej Alias Shamas Tabrej v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Sams Tabrej Alias Shamas Tabrej 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

Rituwa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Anwar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Saw Alias Bittu Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharik Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanchan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Alias Binay Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand