Rakesh Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand

These criminal appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 296 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, all the above three appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 395 of Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Further, appellants, namely, Kartik Roy and Uday Roy have also been convicted under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years.

The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Uma Shankar Yadav (P.W.2), in which, it has been alleged that on 29.5.2001, after taking food, he along with his wife and others were sleeping. When he woke up at 1:30 a.m., he saw that some dacoits, armed with Talwar (sharp cutting weapon), lathi and other weapons, entered into his house, they assaulted him with knife on his leg. The dacoits looted away silver and golden ornaments and household utensils as well as other articles. It has also been alleged that the informant identified one of the dacoits as Kartik Roy (one of the appellants). On hearing commotion, the villagers came and chased the dacoits, but the dacoits taking advantage of darkness fled away..

On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 48/2001 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. During course of investigation, some looted articles have been recovered from the possession of accused persons. In T.I. Parade, the accused persons and recovered articles were identified by the informant and his wife. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against these appellants for committing the offence and accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed under Sections 395 and 412 IPC and trial proceeded.

In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether eleven witnesses, who are as follows:-

PW-1: Panchanan Manjhi

PW-2: Uma Shankar Yadav (informant),

PW-3: Shankar Yadav,

PW-4: Kartik Manjhi,

PW-5: Nilkanth Yadav,

PW-6 Balram Manjhi,

PW-7 Sarita Devi,

PW-8 Chatur Rai,

PW-9 Paritosh Kumar Thakur (C.O.)

PW-10 R.B. Pal (SDJM),

PW-11 Basant Kumar Mallik,

PW-12 Shyam Narayan Singh (I.O. of this case).

Several documents have also been exhibited in this case.

After closure of evidences, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which they pleaded innocence.

The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charges levelled against the appellants to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellants confines these appeals only on the point of sentence. He is not challenging the judgment of conviction. He submits that the Prasadi Pujhar (appellant of Cr.A. 1666/2003) was aged about 45 years at the time of judgment, whereas Kartik Roy and Uday Roy (appellants of Cr.Appeal 1735/2003) were aged about 30 years and 60 years, respectively at the time of judgment. The judgment was delivered on 27.9.2003. He further submits that there was no past conviction of the appellants. Further the materials, which were alleged to have been taken away, are some household utensils. He further argued that though there is allegation of assaulting the informant by knife on his leg, but the prosecution has not brought any material to suggest that the informant was injured.

Learned A.P.P. submits that P.W. Nos 2 and 7 have supported the occurrence of dacoity and they have identified these appellants in T.I. Parade as well as in Court also and the materials were also recovered.

Considering the limited scope of these appeals now, as the learned counsel has confined these appeals only on the point of sentence, we find that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were earlier involved in any offence and they were convicted earlier. Further, now the appellants, namely, Prasadi Pujhar, Kartik Roy and Uday Roy are aged about 66 years, 51 years and 81 years, respectively. We also find that they have already remained in custody for more than five years. The materials, which were taken, are some pots and house-hold utensils.

Considering the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of these appellants. They were sentenced for period of ten years, which, we now reduce to the period, which they have already undergone. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the bailors.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence of the appellants, these appeals are dismissed.

Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.