Ramesh Bharti @ Ramesh Bharthi @ Ramesh Bharati vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard the argument of learned amicus curiae for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 02^nd December, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal acquitting the appellant under Section 468 of the IPC and upholding the conviction under Sections 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC, filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.06.2016 passed in G.R. No. 74 of 2007 (T.R.No. 279 of 2016) by the learned C.J.M., Latehar, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 468 of the IPC, with default stipulation, further R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 420 of the IPC, with default stipulation, further R.I. for six months for each offence under Sections 418 and 417 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that the accused (petitioner) and co-accused Shibu Bhagat have cheated 40 persons including the informant-Digamber Bhagat by taking Rs. 200/- per head as a enrollment fee and in return, the accused persons assured that all the 40 persons including the Informant would get old age pension, Indira Awas, Well, Pond, etc. After some time, the informant and others found that they have been deceived by the accused persons. On 08.02.2007, the informant and others came to know that accused persons by hiring a commercial jeep were propagating the same mission, then, the informant and others rushed to accused persons who tried to escape but was apprehended by the villagers and produced before the police.

On the basis of above written application of Informant, Balumath P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Sections 468, 417, 418, 419 and 420 of the IPC against the present petitioner and co-accused.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner by keeping investigation pending against co-accused and accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was transferred for trial and disposal. The aforesaid charges were framed and read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he denied the occurrence and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty as sated above which was also partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC and the allegation against the petitioner is that he has cheated 33 persons by taking Rs. 200/- each of them as enrollment fee providing benefits under different government schemes like Indira Awas, Old Age Pension, Etc. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 5 months 17 days and he was granted regular bail by this Court in B.A. No. 2493 of 2007 dated 23.07.2007 with condition to deposit Rs. 6600/- without prejudice to the case of the parties and subject to the result of this revision and except above case, petitioner has no criminal antecedent and after conviction in this case, the petitioner has maintained his good conduct without involving and indulging in any other criminal activities. Therefore, the petitioner has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the extent of period already undergone by him.

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 5 months 17 days, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

It appears from the evaluation of testimony of prosecution witnesses that all the 19 prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the learned appellate Court has very minutely gone through the record and arrived at conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned trial Court and partly allowed by the learned appellate Court as stated above is hereby upheld.

So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 5 months and 17 days and suffered long agony of the trial who has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, it appears that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him and fine amount of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is also exempted and the amount of Rs. 6600/- deposited by the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2007 while releasing the petitioner on bail, shall be given to the aggrieved persons of this case after proper identification by the learned trial Court.

In result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Petitioner is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.