Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Prasad & Another vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned courts below have not scrutinized the evidence properly, so far as the conviction of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is concerned. He submits that the basic ingredient of fraudulent intention is totally absent in the present case and as per the evidence, it has come that there was a self-help group created where all the members used to contribute and there were transaction of money amongst them from such contribution. He submits that in such circumstances, no case under Section 420 of IPC is made out. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the ingredient of criminal breach of trust is concerned, the same is also made out, in view of the fact that there is no evidence that the money was converted by the petitioner for his own use and accordingly, the basic ingredients of offence under Section 405 of IPC is not made out. The learned counsel submits that this is without prejudice to the submission of the petitioner that there is no cogent material on record to suggest that the petitioner was involved in collection and retention of the money. He further submits that rather there is evidence on record to show from the side of the prosecution itself that there was already existing monetary transaction between the petitioner and those witnesses and the witnesses were highly interested witnesses in the case. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned courts below have wrongly convicted Mr. Santosh Kumar being the son of the co-accused, namely, Ramendra Prasad although Santosh Kumar was not even alleged to be a member of so-called chit fund group or self-help group. The learned counsel has also submitted that the present proceeding was given a criminal colour although apparently it is arising out of pure civil dispute relating to accounts of the self-help group. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has come in the evidence of P.W.-1 that P.W.-1 had given an amount of Rs. 22,000/- to the petitioner, namely, Ramendra Prasad at the time of marriage of his son and even this amount was not given back by Mr. Ramendra Prasad and accordingly, on account of non-refund of the said amount, the present case has been filed. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no evidence of common intention between the petitioners, Santosh Kumar and Ramendra Prasad, and in absence of such evidence Santosh Kumar could not have been convicted by taking aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside and without prejudice to this submission, he has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the so-called amount of loss suffered by the informant and accordingly he prays that the appropriate order may be passed in this case modifying the sentence.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that there is consistent finding of the learned courts below and there is limited scope in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with finding of facts. He further submits that there is ample evidence on record that the money was being collected by both the petitioners, sometimes by Ramendra Prasad and sometimes by his son Santosh Kumar and they jointly collected money in connection with chit fund group created and ultimately the chit fund was closed in the month of May, 2002 and they misappropriated the amount.

The learned counsel further submits that the number of persons involved in self- help group are much more than the persons who have come forward for giving evidence and some of the victims of entire transaction have deposed before the learned court below giving the details of the money paid by them to the petitioners. He further submits that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 420 as well as 406 of Indian Penal Code are made out in the present case and accordingly, no interference is called for.

Arguments concluded.

Post this case on 09.11.2020 for dictation of judgment.