Shashti Chandra Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.720 of 2005 (T.R. No.286 of 2011) whereby the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence committed under Section 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 279 and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, has been upheld.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant the formal FIR was registered on 05.09.2005 against the driver of the truck bearing registration no. BPU 8621. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and after submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken under Section 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial.

Based upon the evidences and argument adduced before him, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2011. The learned appellate court after meticulously examining the evidences and argument adduced before him concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and did not interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below.

Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. There are contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. The alleged eye witnesses are not actually the eye witnesses but hearsay witnesses and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall be acquitted. She further concluded her argument by submitting that the petitioner is an innocent person and not a habitual offender and there is no criminal antecedent against him. In this case, he has remained in custody for about 2 months and he has never misused the privilege of bail given by either courts.

On the other hand, the learned APP has fully supported the prosecution case and submitted that there are concurrent findings of the learned courts below and the petitioner has failed to point out any errors in the order and as such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is true that prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the petitioner but at the same time, it is also a fact that this case is pending since 2005 and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for almost 14 years. Further he has remained in custody for about 2 months. It is also a fact that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner as such in the interest of justice, it will be proper to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act after entering into a bail upon of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties with a like amount each for keeping peace and good behavior for a period of two years, failing which he will serve rest sentence as passed against him by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision application is disposed of.

Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.