Ghanshyam Kumar Singh @ Ghanshyam Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 by which the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar. The prayer is also made to set-aside the judgment dated 13.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar arising out of Rikhiya P.S. Case No.160/2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1319/2021, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to acquit the accused person/opposite party no.2 for the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner/informant instituted the FIR being Rikhiya P.S. Case No.160/2020 against the unknown person for the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that he had gone to Munger for Chhath Puja and he got information in the morning of 20.11.2020 that someone has committed theft in his house in the night of 19.11.2020. The petitioner used to live as a tenant in the house of Harish Prasad Singh. When the petitioner reached his house, he saw that someone has broken the lock of his house and almirah, which was kept inside the room and has stolen various articles like ornaments, earrings (five pair), rings (five pieces), gold necklace (two pieces), gold chain (two pieces), gold bangles (two pair), mangalsutra, one nose ring, one maang tikka, bracelet, two lockets, which amounted to a total of Rs.8,10,000/- and cash worth Rs.3,75,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts have not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in right perspective and have acquitted the accused/opposite party no.2, namely, Ram Pravesh Mandal. He further submits that Rs.3,000/- in cash and one mobile set was recovered from the possession of opposite party no.2 and seizure list was prepared. According to him, since the mobile was recovered from possession of opposite party no.2 and SIM card was removed from that mobile and in view of that, prima facie, Ram Pravesh  Mandal  is  responsible  for  the  theft  and  that  aspect  has not  been  appreciated  by  both  the  learned  Courts.  On  these  grounds, he   submits   that   this   criminal   revision  petition  may  kindly  be allowed.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that both the learned Courts have given cogent reason and they have discussed each and every material on the record including the oral and documentary evidence and, thereafter, passed the orders. He further submits that only Rs.3,000/- has been recovered and it cannot be said that the said Rs.3,000/- is of the petitioner herein. He then submits that the allegation is also not there in the FIR of theft of the mobile and in that view of the matter, he submits that both the learned Courts have rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the order.

In view of the above, the only point has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is recovery of Rs.3,000/- and seizure list was prepared and mobile was recovered from the possession of Ram Pravesh Mandal. The learned trial Court has found that it is not clear that the said Rs.3,000/- and mobile set is of the petitioner. The learned trial Court has further appreciated the testimony of the informant/petitioner who has stated that the ornaments like earrings, rings, gold necklace, gold chain, gold bangles, mangalsutra, nose ring, maang tikka, bracelet and lockets were stolen and considering all the materials available on record, the learned Court has acquitted the accused/opposite party no.2. The learned trial Court has appreciated each and every oral evidence of all the witnesses as well as documentary evidence and, thereafter, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 13.02.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2024. The learned appellate Court has further appreciated the entire record and has also found that the allegation of stealing of the mobile is not there in the FIR and in that view of the matter, the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in the orders/judgments of both the learned Court. No case of interference is made out and, as such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.