Prabhu Thakur vs The State of Jharkhand

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 30.8.2005 passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, the then learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Giridih in Session Trail No. 355 of 2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For seven years u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is that a report was lodged before the police in charge, Nawdiha, Distt. Gridih on 11.11.2004, indicating therein that on 10.11.2004 at about 11:30 P.M. about ten miscreants entered into the house of the Informant by breaking the wall of bricks from behind his house and out of these miscreants, about seven miscreants were hidden their faces by cloth and remaining miscreants were outside the house. It is further alleged that at the time, the informant and his wife were going to sleep after taking dinner, the miscreants immediately entered into the house of the informant and they firstly tide the hands and feet of the informant, and thereafter, they snatched the child from the lap of the wife of the informant who was present in the house and asked them to handover the keys of the locker. The informant handed over the keys of the locker to the miscreants in the shadow of fear of death of his child. The miscreants took the gold, silver ornaments, utensils and cloth from the house worth Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh). Thereafter, the miscreants left from the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that one of the miscreants Prabhu Thakur who was standing in front of the informant as well as of his wife, was recognized as Prabhu Thakur, the present appellant before this Court. The matter was reported to the police and the police investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet.

The accused-appellant surrendered before the Court on 5.7.2005. The charges were framed against him and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The accused-appellant denied all the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses namely Pradeep Kumar Podciar-PW-1, Dhanraj Mian-PW-2, Lakheshwar Mahto-PW-3, Samsuddin Ansari-PW-4. Chhotu Mahto-PW-5, Pinky devi-PW-6 - the wife of the informant, Rajesh Kr. Swarnkar-PW-7 and Karmwir Singh-PW-8, the Investigating Officer of this case.

Thus, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. They have stated that when the dacoity was committed in the house of informant-PW-7, they reached immediately at the spot but they had not seen the occurrence at all. The entire prosecution version has been supported by PW-6-Pinky Devi and PW-7 Rajesh Kumar Swarnkar. Both the witnesses, PW-6 and PW-7 have stated in their evidence that on the date of incident, the informant along with his wife were going to sleep. All of a sudden, ten miscreants entered into the house by breaking the rear wall and door of the louse of the informant. Some of them were standing outside the douse whereas seven miscreants who had hidden their face appeared before the informant and tide the hands and feet of PW-7. They had also snatched the child from the lap of the informant''s wife and demanded the keys of the locker. They also threatened to kill the child and also the informant. Under the shadow of fear, the keys were handed over to the miscreants. They opened locker and took away the valuables utensils and cloths worth Rupees One lakh from the informant''s house and thereafter, they left the house. They also threatened them to kill, if they would speak about this fact to any person or report this matter to police. The wife of the informant identified the appellant as one of the miscreants. It is also in the evidence that Prabhu Thakhur is known to the informant for the last ten years who had been running a Barber Shop in front of their house and he used to cut the hairs of the children of the informant during their ''chatti'' function. Thus, nothing material has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses.

After conspicuous consideration, the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally credible and cogent and the manner and the mode of incident had been clearly proved by the witnesses and there is no inconsistency in their depositions. The accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court.

I have gone through the records of the Trial Court and the entire evidence with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties and I find that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the conviction of the accused-appellant. The Counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently argued that he only wants that his conviction may be reduced. He further contended that only the accused-appellant has been charge-sheeted in this case. No other alleged dacoites have been arrested. He further pointed out that the appellant has no any criminal history prior to the incident the appellant is a barber in the village and he carries out his business by doing the same. It was further pointed out that the learned Trial court has convicted him for a period of seven years indicating mitigating circumstances in his judgment. He further pointed out that he was not arrested at the spot and he surrendered before the court on 5.7.2005 whereas the incident occurred on 10.11.2004. In these circumstance, he further prays that he may be given the benefit of a period, already undergone, in the jail. He further pointed out that he has served the sentence about four years or more in jail.

After considering the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties; the entire facts of the case, mode and manner of the incident, participation of the appellant, he factum that the appellant is in jail since long and keeping in view all the circumstances of the case. It would be just and proper to convict the appellant for five years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction made by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed. The sentence is hereby modified for five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence to the above extent.