Sheikh Hasan And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Seikh Farooque, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Seikh Jamil, R/o. Vill.- Agharma Sokhatoli, P.O.- Agharma, P.S.- Kolebira, Dist.Simdega. …… Opp. Parties

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

-------For the Petitioners : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

¶14

Order No. 08/ Dated: 06^th April, 2026

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

¶16

A.P.P. for the state.

¶17

Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Simdega in G. R. No. 421 of 2014 (T.R. No. 124 of 2015) arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and

¶18

2026:JHHC:9787

¶19

half years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶20

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of informant Sheikh Farook alleging therein that on 30.10.2014, he had gone to Agharma market for sale of his cattle. On the way of returning from market when he reached Mission Gortho near Tapkara road, the petitioner Sheikh Hasan came there and started abusing him and caught his shirt’s collar and threatened him with screwdriver. It is further alleged that petitioner Sheikh Hasan looted total Rs. 32600/from the informant. It is also alleged that looted money of Rs. 500 was handed over to the petitioner no. 2 namely Godwin Kiro by Sheikh Hasan. The informant, somehow, escaped from the accused persons and disclosed the incident to the villagers, to which, they advised him to settle the matter but petitioner no. 1 did not agree to the settlement and threatened to kill him.

¶21

On the basis of written report of the informant, Kolebira P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014 was registered on 01.11.2014 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

¶22

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 392 & 411 of the I.P.C. The learned court below took the cognizance and charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 392 & 411 of the I.P.C. on 07.01.2015. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶23

2 | P a g e

¶24

( Cr. Revision No. 726 of 2017)

¶25

2026:JHHC:9787

¶26

The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 392 of the I.P.C and sentenced them accordingly. However, petitioners were not found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and hence, they were acquitted for the said offence.

¶27

Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2015 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Simdega, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2015.

¶28

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners without entering into the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners have remained in custody from 02.11.2014 to 11.05.2015 and 12.06.2017 to 21.06.2017 which is about 06 months and 18 days . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter has been settled between the parties, for which compromise petition was filed by the informant on 18.03.2015. The petitioners have suffered agony of trial of the case for 11 years and have sufficiently been punished. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be modified and reduced to the period of custody undergone by them.

¶29

3 | P a g e

¶30

( Cr. Revision No. 726 of 2017)

¶31

2026:JHHC:9787

¶32

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and has submitted that it is a case of the year 2014 based on written report of the informant. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners recorded by the Court below. Therefore, this revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed.

¶33

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the I.P.C. 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.

¶34

So far sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned, admittedly out of two and half years of rigorous imprisonment, they have sustained part of the imprisonment to the extent of about 06 months and 18 days.

¶35

It appears that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2014 and more than 11 years have been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and have also served sentence for about 06 months and 18 days. The matter has been settled between the parties and a compromise petition has also been filed by the informant.

¶36

4 | P a g e

¶37

( Cr. Revision No. 726 of 2017)

¶38

2026:JHHC:9787

¶39

Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of

¶40

justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by petitioners.

¶41

In view of above discussions and reasons, impugned judgment of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.

¶42