Umesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Namita Sahay, Advocate [Cr. Rev. 907 of 2015] Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate [Cr. Rev. 737 of 2015] For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.

¶13

----------PRESENT

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS

¶15

----------

¶16

Dated:10^th July, 2026 By Court:-

¶17

Heard the argument of learned counsels for the respective petitioner and learned Spl.PP and A.P.P. appearing for the State in both these cases.

¶18

Criminal Revision No. 907 of 2015 is preferred against the judgment dated 07^th July 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No.15 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2015 is preferred againt the judgment dated 30^th May, 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

¶19

2026:JHHC:20481

¶20

dated 21.02.2015 in Torpa P.S. Case No. 06 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 39 of 2014 (T.R. No. 01 of 2015) passed by A.C.J.M. Khunti, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 392 of the IPC with default stipulation and further R.I. for 2 years under Section 411 of the IPC, has been upheld with modification by setting aside the conviction under Section 411 of the IPC.

¶21

Factual Matrix:-

¶22

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 02.02.2014, the informant along with his friend Amardip Lohra were returning from Khunti from his motorcycle and when both of them reached near Rodo, two boys i.e. both the present petitioners overtook the motorcycle of the informant and slapped the informant and his friend and looted the said motorcycle and tried to flee away but when the informant party raised hue and cry, the nearby villagers came and caught hold of the both accused persons who were fleeing away. On information, the police came and on enquiry, the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Mohan Mahto and Umesh Mahto.

¶23

On the basis of the written report of Informant, Torpa P.S. Case No. 06 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 392 and 411 of the IPC against the present petitioners.

¶24

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 907 of 2015 & Cr. Rev. No. 737 of 2015 2

¶25

2026:JHHC:20481

¶26

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance

¶27

was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions.

¶28

In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

¶29

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioners are innocent denying the occurrence.

¶30

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC which was also affirmed by learned Appellate Court with modification by setting aside the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against the present petitioners.

¶31

Submissions on behalf of petitioners: -

¶32

Learned counsels for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court has confined their argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners were apprehended while attempting to commit theft of Motorcycle and after the occurrence, the petitioners were apprehended from another place which was not the place of occurrence and implicated in

¶33

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 907 of 2015 & Cr. Rev. No. 737 of 2015

¶34

3

¶35

2026:JHHC:20481

¶36

this case and the petitioners were acquitted for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC rather has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC reducing the sentence for four years out of which the petitioners have remained in custody for about 1 years 2 months. It is further submitted that it was their first offence and have never been convicted for any other criminal offence prior to this occurrence, hence, sentenced awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by them.

¶37

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶38

Per contra, Learned Spl.P.P. as well as APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for about 1 years 2 months, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.

¶39

: Analysis, reasons and decision

¶40

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

¶41

It appears from the evaluation of testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence as exhibited in this case that motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-10AC-

¶42

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 907 of 2015 & Cr. Rev. No. 737 of 2015 4

¶43

2026:JHHC:20481

¶44

0930 was looted by the accused persons and the same was recovered from the very place of occurrence which proved the case of robbery under Section 392 of the IPC and admittedly the looted motorcycle was recovered at the same time, hence, there is no evidence to prove the offence under Section 411 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners passed by the learned trial Court has rightly been upheld by the learned appellate Court as stated above which is hereby affirmed.

¶45

So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, it appears that it was their first offence and there is no any evidence that they have committed any another criminal offence prior and post occurrence of this case and petitioners are now leading a normal life and have suffered long agony of the trial and has remained in custody for 1 years 2 months, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioners.

¶46