IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.186 of 2010
1. MAHESH RAJAK SON OF CHALITRA RAJAK
2. RANJEET MANDAL SON OF KARTIK MANDAL
BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEKHPURA, P.S.- MUFASSIL
(KHAGARIA), DISTT. KHAGARIA.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh no. 2, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
-----------
5 24.09.2010 Heard both sides.
Petitioners assail the appellate order dated 8.12.2009
passed on Cr. Appeal no. 25 of 2009 (Navin Paswan and Ors
versus State of Bihar) whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioners herein was dismissed and the judgment and order of
conviction recorded by learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria in G.R. no.
469 of 2004 has been affirmed. Learned trial court found the
petitioners guilty under Section 394 IPC and sentenced them to
undergo R.I. for 03 years besides imposition of fine having default
clause.
At the trial, 07 witnesses were examined to prove the
prosecution case. Learned trial court relying upon the evidence of
the informant (P.W. 6) and the two seizure witnesses namely
P.Ws. 5 and 7 convicted the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made two fold
submissions. It is contended that based on the sole testimony of
P.W. 6, finding of guilt recorded by learned court below was
inappropriate. It is next contended that one of the co-accuseds of
this case namely Navin Paswan moved this Court in Cr. Revision
2
no. 23 of 2010 which was heard and disposed of by order dated
8.1.2010 whereby the sentence was modified to the period
already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
supported the impugned judgments and orders of conviction. It is
contended that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt
recorded by the two courts below meriting interference.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of
the parties. Learned appellate Court in paragraph 12 of the
judgment has found that the appellant did not put any question
and thus tried to shake the testimony of P.W. 6 and, therefore,
his evidence was in tact and worth reliance. Having appreciated
materials available on record, learned appellate court on
rescanning of the evidence has found that the identification in the
Court by the informant (P.W. 6) after expiry of two years of the
occurrence cannot be brushed aside in view of the fact that the
accused was not able to elicit anything from him creating any
doubt.
The second submission of the petitioners is that one of
the co-convicts has been sentenced to period already undergone
by this Court. I have perused the order. A Bench of this Court
found that the convicted petitioner had remained in custody for
about two years and eight months and in that view of the matter,
the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.
The petitioner has suffered enormously in fighting the
3
trial which protracted for about 05 years. They were found aged
about 30 years at the time of recording conviction. There is no
past criminal record against them. These facts appearing from
record definitely entitle the petitioner for a lesser punishment. In
that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser
sentence shall meet the ends of justice.
Consequently, while upholding the judgment and order
under revision, this Court modifies the sentence of the petitioner
awarded under Section 394 IPC from R.I. for 03 years to R.I. for
02 years. The other part/condition of the sentence shall remain
unaltered/untouched.
With this modification in sentence, the application is
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj