Shankar Rabidas Vs State of Jharkhand

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2007 and sentence dated 20.12.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1991 (Arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 26 of 1990, G.R. Case No. 317 of 1990) by then learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhanbad, by which the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of Eight (08) years and to pay the fine of Rs.500/-. However, the period, which the convict has already remained in custody, i.e. Three years Seven months and 13 days, was ordered to be deducted from the sentence which has been awarded by the learned Trial Court.

¶16

2. The prosecution case was registered on the basis of fardbayan of Sapan Kumar Lala, Regional Secretary of Bihar Colliery worker’s Union, which was

¶17

1

¶18

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶19

recorded by S.I. Ravinder Kumar Singh, the then O.C. Panchet on 30.01.1990 at around 03.15 hours at Birsa Colliery stating therein that in the night of 30.01.1990, while he was sleeping in his quarter and bolted the door from inside, then at that time somebody pushed the door from outside due to which the door was broken and due the said noise, the informant woke up and saw that four persons were entering into his room and they all were in the age group of 20 to 30 years. Out of those four persons, one was having Bhujali in his hand, another miscreant was having rod and the third person was having knife in his hand. The miscreants caught hold of the neck of the informant and put the pointed portion of Bhujali on the neck of the informant and asked the informant to remain silent. The other two miscreants looted cash and wrist watch from the house of the informant and after this the other miscreants also came inside and started breaking the almirah and box in the house. They also looted the articles lying in the Almirah and box. The informant has also given the description of the miscreants and disclosed that one of the miscreants was having curly hair and of medium complexion, aged around 18 years, having normal height. The informant described another miscreant as fair complexioned having normal height wearing full pant using Hindi dialogue. The miscreants, after looting the household articles, threatened the informant and went out. Afterwards, some of the miscreants again entered into the room and pulled out the informant from the room and confined him in another room. The said room was bolted from outside by the

¶20

2

¶21

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶22

miscreants. The informant also saw one of the miscreants having bag in his hand standing outside. The miscreants also brought two other persons and confined them in the same room.

¶23

It was also disclosed by the informant that at the time of incident there was sufficient light and in the said light the informant had identified the miscreants and stated that he can identify them after seeing their face. The informant raised Hullah after 15 minutes of the incident due to fear and then one Mani Singh who was a neighbour of the informant, came there and opened the door. Said Mani Singh disclosed to the informant that the miscreants also entered into his house and looted watch, silver jewelry and cash. The miscreants entered into the house of Shekh Kulti and looted cash of Rs.1150/- and household articles. These persons followed the miscreants to some distance and then they saw that 8 to 10 miscreants were crossing the river. The miscreants went towards Kumardubi. The Informant and others could not chase them out of fear. The informant and others have also disclosed the above fact to the C.I.S.F. personnel who was posted there and also informed the Hawaldar who was on duty at Dahiwari Colliery and also requested him to inform the police.

¶24

It was further stated by the informant in the fardbeyan that all of them can identify the accused, whom they have seen in the light of bulb. The above said fardbayan was forwarded to S/C Chirkunda P.S. and registered as Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 26 of 1990, under

¶25

3

¶26

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶27

Section 395 of I.P.C. and the investigation was handed over to R.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Panchet O.P.

¶28

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶29

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2007 and sentence dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

¶30

However, it is submitted alternatively that the appellant was in jail during trial from 13.02.1990 to 08.06.1992, i.e. for around two years and four months and also from 09.03.1999 till 27.06.2000, i.e. for one year and more than three months. Thus, the appellant had remained in custody for Three years and more than seven months during trial and after conviction he was in custody since 14.12.2007 till 21.04.2009, i.e. one year four months and seven days. Thus, the appellant had remained in custody for around Four years 11 months 20 days, i.e. for around five years. It is submitted that the appellant is not pressing the appeal on merit and lenient view may be taken.

¶31

5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is proper and correct and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that P.W.1, namely Mani Singh has identified the Appellant No.1 in T.I. Parade and he has supported the

¶32

4

¶33

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶34

prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.2, namely Sapan Kumar Lala is the Informant of this case and has supported the dacoity in his house, though he has not identified the appellant during trial. It is submitted that P.W.3, namely Pramod Kumar, then Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad has stated that the Informant (P.W.2) had identified the appellant and other accused persons, namely Ravidas, Ramu Ravidas and Belu Rana, whereas P.W.1- Mani Singh had identified the appellant and two other accused, namely Belu Rana and Tipu Ravidas and has proved the T.I.P., which is marked as Ext.2. Thus, the prosecution has rightly proved its case before the learned Trial Court and hence, no lenient view can be taken in favour of the appellant and therefore, this criminal appeal may be dismissed.

¶35

6. Perused the Trial Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶36

7. It transpires that the Informant had lodged F.I.R. on 31.01.1990 against unknown persons under Section 395 of I.P.C.

¶37

8. It transpires that the Police, after completing investigation, had submitted chargesheet against the appellant, namely Shankar Rabidas and some others, namely Belu Rana, Ramu Ravidas, Basdeo Ravidas and Tipu Ravidas on 02.05.1990 for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C.

¶38

9. After supplying police papers, the charges were framed by the 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on 30.05.1991 against the appellant, namely Shankar Rabidas and other accused persons, namely Belu

¶39

5

¶40

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶41

Rana, Ramu Ravidas, Basdeo Ravidas and Tipu Ravidas under Section 395/412 of I.P.C. on 30.05.1991 and charges were framed against another accused Duggu Sao by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad under Sections 395/412 I.P.C. on 22.06.1999 and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶42

10. During trial the prosecution has got examined Three (03) witnesses in support of its case, who are as follows:-

¶43

(i) P.W. 1 is Mani Singh,

¶44

(ii) P.W. 2 is Sapan Kumar Lala, i.e. the Informant and

¶45

(iii) P.W.3 is Pramod Kumar, the then J.M.-Ist Class, Dhanbad 11. The prosecution, in support of its case got marked certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:-

¶46

(i) Ext.1 is the signature of Informant on Fardbayan, and

¶47

(ii) Ext. 2 is the T.I.P. Chart

¶48

12. Thereafter, the appellant and the others were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.09.2005, to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them.

¶49

13. Thereafter, Addl. P.P. filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 05.10.2005 and the prosecution was allowed opportunity to examine other witnesses but he failed to do so and the prosecution evidence was closed.

¶50

14. Thereafter the appellant and another coaccused-namely Duggu Prasad were again examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2006, to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them.

¶51

6

¶52

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶53

15. Neither any defence witness was examined nor any document was marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the defence.

¶54

16. It further reveals from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that fresh application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, which was allowed on 30.06.2006 and thereafter various reminders were given to examine the prosecution witnesses, however, none of the witnesses turned up and hence, the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments.

¶55

17. It transpires that P.W.1, namely Mani Singh, has supported the prosecution case and identified the appellant during T.I. Parade.

¶56

18. It transpires that P.W.2 is Sapan Kr. Lala, who is the Informant of this case and who has supported the prosecution case of dacoity in his house, however, he has not identified the appellant during trial although he had identified the appellant during T.I.P.

¶57

19. P.W. 3 is Pramod Kumar, then J.M.-Ist Class, Dhanbad who had conducted T.I. Parade and stated that Sapan Kumar Lala, i.e. P.W.2 (i.e. the Informant) had identified Tipu Ravidas, Ramu Ravidas, Belu Rana, Shankar Ravidas (i.e. the appellant). He further stated that another witness Mani Singh had identified Belu Rana, Tipu Ravidas and Shankar Ravidas (i.e. the appellant).

¶58

The T.I.P. Chart is marked as Ext.2.

¶59

20. From perusal of Trial Court Record, it reveals that P.W.3 has supported the prosecution case on

¶60

7

¶61

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:38787 )

¶62

the point of T.I. Parade of appellant-Shankar Ravidas, although P.W.2, namely Sapan Kumar Lala, i.e. the Informant has not identified the appellant during trial before the learned Trial Court below.

¶63

21. It transpires that nothing was recovered from the appellant and as such the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 412 of I.P.C.

¶64

22. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 of I.P.C. is confirmed, however, so far as sentence is concerned, it is evident that the appellant has remained in custody for around Four years 11 months and 20 days, i.e. around Five years out of his sentence of R.I. of Eight (08) years.

¶65

23. Under the circumstances, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from R.I. for Eight years to the period undergone by appellant during the trial and after conviction and the period undergone by the appellant in jail shall be period of sentence.

¶66

24. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 205 of 2008 is dismissed with modification in the sentence as aforesaid.

¶67

25. Let a copy of this judgment and original Trial Court Record be sent to the learned Trial Court at once.

¶68

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶69

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgment dated 14.08.2025 N.A.F.R./s.m.

¶70

8

Shankar Rabidas v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Rabidas v. 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

Mausam Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Irfan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Rai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Prem Rajesh Soy Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Ramanuj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand