Devendra Nath Giri vs The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

R.R. Prasad, J.—This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.1999 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 1997 by the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas whereby the judgment under which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 379/411 of Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas was affirmed but modified the sentence by directing the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000/-with two sureties of like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, whereas the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas at Bokaro having found the petitioner guilty for an offence under Sections 379/411 of Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 411 of IPC, whereas no separate sentence was awarded u/s 379 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that while CISF Constable-Nanhu Ram (P.W. 1) was at night patrolling in Bokaro Steel Plant alongwith Constables Krishan Pal Singh (P.W. 2), Jagdish Raj and P. Swaminathan (P.W. 4), they saw one person throwing copper plate out of the boundary wall. The said person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Devendra Nath Giri-petitioner and the copper plate on being recovered was seized under seizure list (Ext. 1). Thereupon, property certificate was taken from Bansidhar Pandey-P.W. 3 and thereafter the informant-Nanhu Ram produced the culprit alongwith seized materials before Marafari Police Station where an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 379/411 of IPC.

In course of trial, the prosecution examined the informant-Nanhu Ram as P.W. 1 who supported the case, as has been made in the F.I.R., by testifying that he alongwith other Constables Krishan Pal Singh (P.W. 2), Jagdish Raj and P. Swaminathan (P.W. 4), apprehended the petitioner while he was throwing copper plate out of the boundary wall. The testimony of Nanhu Ram gets corroboration from the other witnesses namely Krishan Pal Singh (P.W. 2) and P. Swaminathan (P.W. 4). The petitioner on being found guilty was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

However, an appeal being preferred, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, whereas the order of sentence was modified to the extent as indicated above.

Having gone through the records, I do not find any illegality with the order passed either by the trial court or by the appellate court.

Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision application and accordingly, it is dismissed..