Sanjay Guria  Vijay Gudiya Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:20994

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 501 of 2009

¶4

------

¶5

Sanjay Gudiya @ Vijay Gudiya, Son of Robari Guria, Resident of village-Chiro, P.S.-Chandwa, Dist.- Latehar

¶6

	… .... …. Versus	Appellant
The State of Jharkhand	.... .... ....	Respondent
	------
For the Appellant	: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A	dvocate
For the Resp. State	: Mrs. Vandana Bharti,	APP

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Dated: 15^th July, 2026 By Court:-

¶10

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP.

¶11

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2009 and Order of sentence dated 25.02.2009 passed in S.T. No. 75 of 2007 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Latehar, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 412 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default stipulation.

¶12

Factual Matrix:-

¶13

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 23/24.09.2005, five miscreants armed with weapons such as D.B.B.L. Gun, Muzzle, Bhujali and Bamboo Stick looted Rs. 950/- from the Booking Clerk Piyush Kanti Ghosh (P.W.-1) posted at Deputy Station Manager-cum-Booking Office and also assaulted for not telling the details of money kept in the

¶14

2026:JHHC:20994

¶15

said office. It is alleged that miscreants further looted and took away with them some torch from the office of Station Manager. It is also alleged that 3-4 miscreants were also moving outside the said office assaulted Sagar Sahu (P.W.-3) and Sarju Gope (P.W.-2) and snatched their personal torch. The miscreants also looted Rs. 250/- from the pocket of Piyush Kumar Ghosh and Rs. 100/- from the pocket of Jitendra Kumar (Guard). They also looted Rs. 2000/- from a passenger after assaulting him with rod. Informant inform the occurrence at the Police Station and I.O. seized looted articles from the house of the present appellant Sanjay Gudiya and Nirmal Purti.

¶16

On the basis of the fardbeyan of Informant, Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 30 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 395 and 397 of the IPC.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 395, 397 & 412 of the IPC.

¶18

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 75 of 2007 was registered.

¶19

In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

¶20

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence except the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that no any

¶21

Cr. A (S.J.) No. 501 / 2009 2

¶22

2026:JHHC:20994

¶23

articles have been recovered from the possession of the accused and false implication.

¶24

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 412 of the IPC acquitting the appellant under Section 395 and 397 of the IPC.

¶25

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for more than three and half years out of five years as awarded by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence is of the year 2005 and more than two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant is aged about 50 years, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case.

¶27

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶28

Per contra, Learned APP has defended the judgment of

¶29

learned trial Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is

¶30

Cr. A (S.J.) No. 501 / 2009

¶31

3

¶32

2026:JHHC:20994

¶33

concerned, she has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2005 and the appellant has sustained three and half years custody out of five years, hence appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice.

¶34

: Analysis, reasons and decision

¶35

It appears that five miscreants armed with various weapons looted cash from the office of Deputy Station Manager-cumBooking Clerk, passenger and also took away some personal torch of the Guard and other railway staffs posted there in the night of said occurrence. It also appears that miscreant assaulted the booking clerk who is eye witness-cum-injured who was later examined by the Doctor and in course of investigation, the looted articles were recovered from the house of the present appellant and co-accused. P.W.-3 Sagar Sahu another eye-witness has also supported the factum of occurrence but due to non-identification of the accused persons and due to non-conduction of T.I.P., the charges under Section 395 and 397 of the IPC could not be proved and the accused were acquitted from the above charges and by finding sufficient evidence, the accused was convicted under Section 412 of the IPC Therefore, the conviction of the appellant passed by the learned trial Court is upheld.

¶36

So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears

¶37

that the occurrence is of the year 2005 and since then, two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long

¶38

Cr. A (S.J.) No. 501 / 2009

¶39

4

¶40

2026:JHHC:20994

¶41

agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for more than three and half years out of five years as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant.

¶42