Advocates:
['N K RAM', '', 'KUNDAN KUMAR SINGH', 'A K SINHA', 'NILESH KUMAR', 'SUNIL PANDEY', 'MD ANISURZZAMA KHAN', 'A P P', '', 'RUBY PANDEY', 'KUMARI RASHMI']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 871 of 2003

Md. Mister

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand

….. Opposite Party

With

Cr. Revision No. 863 of 2003

1. Md. Khalid Anwar @ Bablu

2. Md. Parbez Alam

….. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

….. Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Md. Anisurzzama Khan, Advocate

For the State

: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP

--------

07/ 10.06.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Both applications arise out of common judgment and are

interconnected, as such same are heard together and dispose of by

this common order.

3.

Both applications are directed against the judgment

dated 27.06.2003, passed by 4^th Additional Judicial Commissioner-

cum-Spl. Judge-II CBI, AHD, Ranchi in criminal appeal No. 29 of

2002 and 30 of 2002, whereby the appeal preferred by the

petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 12.03.2002, passed in G.R. No.731 of 1999

corresponding to T.R. No. 245 of 2002 by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi, whereby the petitioners were found

guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of Indian

Penal Code and they were convicted to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years under Section 414 of the Indian Penal

Code, has been sustained.

2

4.

The prosecution case in brief, according to exhibit 6 is

that on the basis of confessional statement of accused Md. Mahtab

recorded in another Kotwali Hindpiri P.S. Case No.51 of 1999 dated

07.02.1999 under Section 457/ 380 IPC the informant along with

other police personnel raided the shop of the accused-Md. Parwej

Alam and Md. Khalid Anwar on 07.02.1999. Further, the case is

that on search several articles were found. On demand by the police

the petitioners failed to show any receipt of purchase. After

investigation the chargesheet was submitted and the learned trial

court after full-fledged trial convicted the petitioners under Section

414 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before

the learned appellate court which has also been dismissed.

5.

Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that all the above mentioned old articles which

were seized were purchased from several persons. He further

submits that there is no report of theft and as such Section 414 IPC

for which the petitioners have been convicted will not be attracted;

inasmuch as, the basic ingredients of Section 414 IPC is that the

person should have in custody of stolen property and since there is

no theft report it cannot be said that these are stolen property. In the

entire deposition of prosecution witnesses there is no reference of

any theft report save and except confessional statement of person

who is accused in different cases.

Learned counsel further highlighted the fact that out of

3

five witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were seizure list witnesses which has

been declared hostile, as such the basic crux to prove the stolen

articles has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the other

witnesses i.e. P.W. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 all were police personnel and

they were interested witnesses. More so, the seized articles are

never been produced before the Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the

conviction has been made mere on surmises and conjecture which

cannot be done in criminal proceeding. Relying upon the aforesaid

submission, learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by

the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is

fit to be set aside.

Further, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the incident is of the year 1999 and 22 years have elapsed and the

petitioners must have suffered the