Partly allowed¶13

Shashi Alias Rahul Patwa Alias Sashi Kumar Tanti v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 May 2024Cr.Rev./604/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC Cr. Revision No. 604 of 2016, decided 09.05.2024 (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.). Juvenile offender Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa; Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 192 of 2011; S.366 IPC conviction affirmed; sentence modification to period already undergone; juvenile justice, rehabilitation and reformation, quantum of sentence, discharge of bail bond. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed on merits (conviction under Section 366 IPC affirmed), but sentence modified: petitioner sentenced to detention for the period already undergone; petitioner being on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and his sureties are likewise discharged. ¶13

Shashi Alias Rahul Patwa Alias Sashi Kumar Tanti Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent finding of guilt of the juvenile under Section 366 IPC by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court (Sessions Judge, Lohardaga) required interference in this criminal revision. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

With both courts below concurrently holding that the prosecution proved the juvenile's guilt under Section 366 IPC, on direct evidence that he enticed the minor girl and took her away from the custody of her lawful guardian, the finding of fact is correct, legal and proper and calls for no interference on merits in revision.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since more than thirteen years have passed since the alleged offence, the petitioner is now about thirty years old, and he has already sustained four months' detention during enquiry and thereafter, in the interest of his rehabilitation and reformation the detention already undergone is sufficient punishment; the sentence is accordingly modified to the period already undergone.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision — Juvenile convicted under S.366 IPC by Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga (Enquiry Order dated 23.04.2015, 3 years' Special Home detention); appeal dismissed by Sessions Judge, Lohardaga on 02.04.2016. High Court of Jharkhand (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.), 09.05.2024: upheld the concurrent findings on merits, there being direct evidence the juvenile enticed and took away the minor girl from her lawful guardian's custody; confined relief to quantum of sentence — petitioner, now aged about 30, having undergone four months' detention and more than thirteen years having elapsed since the occurrence, sentence reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of rehabilitation and reformation; bail bond and sureties discharged.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 604 of 2016

¶2

------

¶3

Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa @ Shashi Kumar Tanti, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad @ Ram Chandra Patwa, resident of Village – Zima, P.O. & P.S. – Kuru, District – Lohardaga, through his father Ram Chandra Prasad @ Ram Chandra Patwa, Son of Late Ram Swarup Prasad, resident of Village – Zima, P.O. & P.S. – Kuru, District – Lohardaga.

¶4

.... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party

¶5

------

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Tanti, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

Order No. 08 / Dated- 09.05.2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the juvenile-petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the Enquiry Order dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Court, Lohardaga in G.R. No. 643 of 2011 / E.R. No. 36 of 2015 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 192 of 2011, registered for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C., whereby and whereunder the juvenile has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sent to Special Home for detention of a period of 3 years.

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant, who is father of the victim, has given written report before the Lohardaga P.S. alleging therein that the victim was a student of Class-VII. It is further alleged that on 12.12.2011, at about 8:00 A.M., she had gone to attend her school and she did not come back home at the usual time i.e. at 4:00 P.M. The informant’s wife made an enquiry and found that the victim had not even gone to her School. Thereafter, the informant was given information by his wife and he reached his house. It is further alleged that on suspicion, he inquired about the whereabouts of one boy Shashi @ Rahul, who used to live on rent in the house of a teacher namely, Vishwanarayan Ram. Thereafter, the informant came to know that two days’ prior, Shashi @ Rahul had left his rented house. It is further alleged that the informant had firm belief that Shashi @ Rahul had enticed and took away his daughter for illegal purpose.

¶15

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 192 of 2011 under Section 366 of I.P.C. was registered against Shashi @ Rahul and the police started investigation of the case.

¶16

5. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the juvenile Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa under Sections 366A / 376 of the I.P.C. and cognizance of offences under Section 366A / 376 of the I.P.C. was taken against Juvenile. The petitioner was

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

declared Juvenile vide order dated 13.02.2012 and the case record was received in the J.J.B. Lohardaga on 14.02.2012 for enquiry and disposal.

¶19

6. On 15.03.2012, the substance of accusation under Section 366 of I.P.C. was explained to the Juvenile, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for enquiry by the Board and the Board after conclusion of Enquiry found the Juvenile guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to be sent to the Special Home for detention for a period of three years. The said Enquiry Order dated 23.04.2015 challenged under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was confirmed by the appellate court and has been assailed in this revision.

¶20

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the Enquiry Order of concerned Juvenile Justice Board and order of the appellate court has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that out of three years detention awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone four months remand during enquiry from 23.01.2012 to 15.03.2012 and after conviction from 11.08.2016 to 22.09.2016, as such, the petitioner has been adequately punished for the offences committed by him. Under such circumstances, this revision may be allowed or in alternative, the revision may be dismissed subject to modification

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

in the sentence awarded by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, which was affirmed by the learned appellate court to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo detention for the period already undergone by him.

¶23

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but as far as modification in sentence is concerned in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order(s) may be passed.

¶24

9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the Enquiry Order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as of the appellate court, it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of Juvenile for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and there is direct evidence against him that he enticed the minor girl and took her away from the custody of her lawful guardian without their consent. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision.

¶25

10. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned admittedly out of three years’ detention, he has sustained substantial

¶26

Page 4 of 5

¶27

part of the detention to the extent of four months during course of enquiry and during pendency of the appeal and this revision.

¶28

11. It appears that on the date of alleged commission of crime, petitioner was aged about 17 years and more than 13 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence and now petitioner is 30 years old. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence for about four months.

¶29

12. Under the aforementioned circumstances in the interest of rehabilitation and reformation of the petitioner, the detention already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him.

¶30

13. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go detention for the period already undergone.

¶31

14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.

¶32

15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶33

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶34

Sunil/-NAFR

¶35

Page 5 of 5

Shashi Alias Rahul Patwa Alias Sashi Kumar Tanti v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Alias Rahul Patwa Alias Sashi Kumar Tanti 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

Gulfan Ansari Alias Umar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abid Ansari Alias Dhanu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Kumar Kapri Vs the State of Jharkhand

H K Sarangi Hari Krishna Sarangi Vs State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation

Mukesh Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand