JUDGMENT :

Through Video Conferencing

Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State of Jharkhand.

3. This revision application has been filed by the two petitioners against the judgement dated 06.03.2003 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 188 of 1996 by the court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

4. The petitioners were convicted vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.1996 passed in R.P. Case No. 23/1992, T.R. No. 99 of 1996 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 3 of Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as R.P.U.P. Act of 1966).

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while assailing the impugned judgements, has submitted that the impugned judgements are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. He has submitted that neither the seized articles have been proved to be railway property nor the seizure itself has been proved. He has submitted that the seized articles were common articles which could be available in general market also and there was no mark of Railways on the seized articles. The learned counsel has also submitted that the two seizure witnesses have turned hostile and accordingly, the seizure itself has not been proved.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the conviction of the petitioners only on the basis of evidence of official witnesses is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the independent witnesses who were witness to the alleged seizure of articles, have not supported the prosecution case.

7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has further submitted that as per the records of the present case, the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners and the petitioners have faced the criminal case right from the year 1992 and accordingly, about 30 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. He has submitted that the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years which is quite harsh and considering the elapse of time from the date of the incident, some sympathetic view may be taken. He has also submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has remained in custody during trial for about 7 days and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have remained in custody during the pendency of present revision application for a period of about 22 days.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence by this Court in revisional jurisdiction and coming to a different finding.

9. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they have also identified the recovered materials. He further submits that the seizure witnesses though turned hostile, but they have not denied their signature on the seizure list. The learned counsel submits that considering the totality of the evidences on record, the impugned judgements are based on material on record and the impugned judgements are neither perverse nor suffer from any material irregularity or illegality. The learned counsel also submits that huge quantity of railway property was recovered and there is also confessional statement of the petitioner no. 1. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in the conviction of the petitioners.

10. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the State has no