Criminal revision against conviction under Section 379 IPC for being found on a stolen motorcycle shortly after theft. The court found no illegality in the concurrent findings and refused probation benefit as the petitioner was involved in five other criminal cases. Revision dismissed.
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. Revision No. 885 of 2015
------
Md. Nisar @ Dablu, son of Late Safiq Buchad, Resident of Mohalla Garib Basti, Bari Bazar, P.O. Bari Bazar, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District-Singhbhum West .... ….
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate. Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On Dated- 10.05.2024 Pronounced On- 09.08.2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in G.R. No. 447 of 2007/T.R. No. 34 of 2011 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007, whereby the petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, has been dismissed but in the appeal, conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 411 of
Page 1 of 5
the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the conviction and sentence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed.
3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the informant, who is a student of commerce college, on 15.08.2007 went on his motorcycle to Mina Bazar, Gandhi Maidan, Chaibasa. After return from Mina Bazar, the informant found his motorcycle was missing from that place. Then, he started searching, but could not find it. The informant reported the matter to the police at about 9:00 P.M., and in course of search, it was found that petitioner along with two co-accused persons were boarding on his motorcycle and proceeding towards police line, who were apprehended by the police. Informant identified his motorcycle and all the three accused persons disclosed their names.
Accordingly, Sadar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007 dated 15.08.2007 was registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court took cognizance and thereafter, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 2 of 5
5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated above.
6. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2011 and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2015 confirmed the judgment of conviction, but modified the order of sentence of petitioner and dismissed the appeal, which has been assailed in this revision.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a young person and remained in custody for a period of six months and 10 days and the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has not assigned any reasons for not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Thus, a liberal view may be taken and the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to the petitioner.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that as per report by the Jail Superintendent, Chaibasa, East Singhbhum, except the present case, petitioner is also involved in another five cases, as such, petitioner is not entitled for getting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Page 3 of 5
learned trial court has also been modified by the learned appellate court, which does not suffer from any illegality / infirmity calling for any interference, by way of this revision, which is fit to be dismissed.
9. It appears that the learned trial court has held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 379 / 411 of the I.P.C. and sentenced for both offences, but in the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, he was held guilty for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. only and sentence passed under Section 411 of the I.P.C. was turn down / set aside. It appears that just after theft of motorcycle of informant and lodging of F.I.R., in the course of search, present petitioner along with two others were found going on the stolen motorcycle and intercepted by the police. The said motorcycle was also seized from their joint possession and they have been booked in this case. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the present petitioner was also involved in commission of theft of motorcycle. The prosecution witness and other documentary evidence available on record consistently proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C., for which, he has been convicted and sentenced by the appellate court.
10. Considering the same, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court.
Page 4 of 5
11. So far extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court that except this case, petitioner is also involved in five other cases. Hence, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended to the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
13. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 09/08/2024
Sunil/-NAFR
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's confirmation of conviction under Section 379 IPC for possession of a stolen motorcycle suffered from any infirmity warranting revisional interference.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Nisar @ Dablu, son of Late Safiq Buchad
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
