The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses to uphold the conviction, and the consideration of mitigating factors in modifying the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) whereunder the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, sentencing the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under section 411 of Indian Penal Code in Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 102/02 dated 05.12.2002, G.R. No. 1040/2002, T.R. No. 301 of 2009 has been confirmed.

4. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has expired during the pendency of this criminal revision and his name has been struck off vide order dated 25.08.2020.

Arguments of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the implements, which were alleged to have been used for the purposes of digging of coal were never produced before the learned trial court as material exhibits and so far as coal is concerned, the same was alleged to have been recovered and handed over to the management of Central Coalfields Ltd., but neither any receipt of that handing over of the coal to Central Coalfields Ltd. has been exhibited, nor any official of the Central Coalfields Ltd. has been examined to substantiate that the recovered coal was handed over to the Central Coalfields Ltd.. He also submits that all the witnesses including seizure list witnesses in the present case are part of the raiding team and accordingly, they are interested witnesses. There is no independent witness and the investigating officer of the case has not been examined. He submits that in a case where all the witnesses are part of the raiding team, the evidence should have been carefully scrutinized by the learned trial court before convicting the petitioners and also by the learned appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners. He submits that non-examination of investigating officer has seriously prejudiced the case of the present petitioners.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period from 06.12.2002 to 01.02.2003 and thereafter from 04.04.2014 to 30.04.2014 and as per the allegations, the petitioners were found to be in possession of illegal coal which was worth Rs.6,000/-.

Arguments of the opposite party- State

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the seizure list witnesses have supported the prosecution case and non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the case. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned appellate court has considered the arguments of the petitioners regarding non-examination of the investigating officer as well as all the aspects of the matter and has passed a speaking order. He submits that there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity, nor any irregularity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, they do not call for any interference.

8. So far as the point of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact that the present occurrence is of the year 2002 and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. He also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner no. 2 is at present 63 years of age as on the date of conviction in the year 2009, he was 52 years of age. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, he is at present 39 years of age.

Findings of this court

9. The case of the prosecution as per the written report is that on 05.12.2002, the informant who is inspector of CISF alongwith other force, was in patrolling duty in old Makouli mines and he saw that