Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 685
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Firoj Ali @ Raju, S/o Md. Rafiat Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P.153 of 2024
Decided on : 03-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. P. Boruah;
For the Respondents: Mr. B.B. Gogoi
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment and order, and to modify the sentence based on the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Criminal Law - Section 380, IPC - The court discussed the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 01 (S-1)/2020. The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 380, IPC and modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 380, IPC for theft of a cylinder from a rented house. The petitioner appealed the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. The petitioner filed a revision petition contending that the judgments were passed mechanically and without proper application of mind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge under Section 380, IPC was established against the petitioner based on the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The court also considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts, material contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses, and the recovery of the stolen cylinder from the possession of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which established the petitioner's involvement in the theft. The court also considered the period already undergone by the petitioner and modified the sentence accordingly.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 380, IPC and modified the sentence to the period already undergone. The petitioner was ordered to be released from jail hazot.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. P. Boruah, learned counsel petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.
2. Legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 01 (S-1)/2020, is impugned in this revision petition under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.06.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur has upheld the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in G.R. Case No. 249/2011. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur has convicted the petitioner under Section 380, IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another fifteen days.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present revision petition, are adumbrated herein below:
“On 08.02.2011, at about 6:10 p.m. in the evening, one thief entered into the rented house of Sri Ramani Deka and committed theft of a cylinder. Thereafter, with the help of local people, the thief was apprehended and thief identified himself as Md. Firoj Ali @ Raja, son of Md. Rafisat Ali of Barikachuburi, Tezpur. Thereafter, Ramani Deka had lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Tezpur Sadar P.S. with a prayer to recover the stolen cylinder.
On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-charge of Tezpur P.S. had registered a case, being Tezpur P.S. Case No. 115/2011, under Section 380, IPC and endorsed SI Saidur Rahman to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, drew the sketch map of the place of occurrence, arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. Thereafter, the I.O. had recovered the cylinder and seized the same in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner to stand trial in the Court under Section 380, IPC.
Then, the accused appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur and then, upon complying with the provision of Section 207, Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur had framed charge against the accused under Section 380, IPC and on being read and explained over the same, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution side has examined as many as six witnesses, including the I.O. and after closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur had examined the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused had declined to adduce evidence in his defence. Thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur had convicted the accused under Section 380, IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Being highly aggrieved, the accused has approached the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by filing an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 01 (S-1)/2020, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.06.2023, in Criminal Appeal No. 01 (S-1)/2020, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 380, IPC.”
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition and contended to allow the same on the following grounds:
(i) That, the impugned judgment and order was passed mechanically and without application of mind;
(ii) That, the learned Courts below had erred both in law and facts;
(iii
