In a criminal revision filed before the Jharkhand High Court against a judgment dated 16.07.2016 by the District and Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Koderma, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the conviction dated 10.07.2012 and added a sentence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside the petitioners’ conviction and order of sentence, allowing the revision.
Through the underlying judgments, the petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 457 and 411 of the IPC, with all sentences directed to run concurrently.
On the intervening night of 23.07.2006 and 24.07.2006, the informant returned to his home from work and saw that the door of the house was open, and that the doors of the rooms of his wife and mother were locked. They were shouting from inside the room to open the door. The informant entered the room, seeing that utensils, a box containing sarees, and land related documents were missing. His mother mentioned that upon peeking through the gap between the door, she saw the accused persons.
A case was registered based on the informant’s complaint for offences under Sections 457/380 of the IPC, and Section 411 of the IPC was added later. During investigation, the I.O. recorded the confessional statement of petitioner 1, who confessed his involvement in the alleged crime along with another accused person. Some of the alleged stolen articles were recovered from his indication, and a seizure list was prepared. Thereafter, a charge sheet was submitted against both petitioners for offences under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the IPC. Subsequently, the trial court convicted and sentenced them under the said Sections.
The petitioners contended that there was nothing to prove that the material seized during investigation belonged to the informant and that the prosecution’s story regarding theft had also been disproved by the IO, who found no broken lock while investigating the place of occurence.
Upon perusing the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court, the Court found that the conviction of the petitioners was based only on the confessional statement of the co-convict person, which led to the recovery of materials from the bushes. It was stated that the seized materials were never put for T.I.P. to connect them with the offence, they were not identified by the informant following proper procedure, and they were not produced during the trial before the court.
The Court determined that the recovery relied upon by the trial and appellate courts did not appear to be based on any sound reason, as there was no connecting evidence showing the involvement of the petitioners. Finding that the trial court and appellate court committed a serious error of law, the Court allowed the revision and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence. The petitioners were discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds, and sureties were also discharged.
