( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 1 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1546 of 2016 ------ (Application for setting aside the judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro) ------ Sunil Ram son of Late Ram Chandra Ram @ Late Matan Ram, resident of Sector-IV, Jhopri Patti, P.O. and P.S.-Sector-IV, District- Bokaro. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court: Heard the parties. 2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.450 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.396 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro convicted the revision petitioner for having committed offence punishable under ( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 2 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 Sections 380, 411 & 457 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, further, the revision petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offences punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each default, but did not pass any separate order of sentence for the offences punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner has committed theft in the residence of the informant by breaking the inter- lock and took away the jewelleries besides a cash amount of Rs.1,200/-, three mobile handsets and two watches. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet and the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to face trial. The prosecution in support of his case, examined five witnesses, PW-1 Krishna Kumar is the informant, he has supported the case of the prosecution, PW-2 Dhirendra Kumar is a witness of the recovery of the stolen article from the petitioner inter alia the informant and PW-2 identified the petitioner and PW-2 also seen the petitioner going through the garden in the house of the informant. PW-3 is also a witness of recovery of the stolen articles from the petitioner and the seizure of the same PW-4 Sanjay Kumar is a post occurrence witness and PW-5 ( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 3 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 Nagendra Rai is the IO of the case. The trial court also considered the evidence that the petitioner was identified by the informant in the course of test identification parade and considering the evidence in the record, the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already indicated above. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.450 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.396 of 2016 and being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro dated 02.09.2016. The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro considering the evidence in the record also considered the submission made by the petitioner who was the appellant and after considering the fact that all the witnesses examined in this case have supported the case of the prosecution as well as documents including the test identification parade report upheld the judgement of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order of sentence is bad in law, as it has been passed on the basis of wrong appreciation of the evidence. It is then submitted that the appellate Court failed to consider that the seizure has not been properly proved, hence, the impugned judgment is bad in law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal revision be allowed. ( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 4 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 5. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that five witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the documents which has been marked as exhibit 1 to 7 is sufficient to establish the offences under Section 380, 411 & 457 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have rightly appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence in the record in accordance with law, hence, no any illegality has been committed by either the learned appellate Court or the learned trial Court, hence, this criminal revision being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandra Babu vs. State reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774, paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “11. First, we shall dwell upon the issue whether the High Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, should have adverted to the merits of the case in extenso. As the factual matrix would reveal, the learned Single Judge has dwelled upon in great detail on the statements of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion that there are remarkable discrepancies with regard to the facts and there is nothing wrong with the investigation. In fact, he has noted certain facts and deduced certain conclusions, which, as we find, are beyond the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. (See Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] .)” (Emphasis supplied) ( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 5 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the scope of revisional jurisdiction and held that the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should not have adverted to the merits of the case in extenso. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is no question of law involved in this criminal revision. Both the courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding based on the testimony of five witnesses and the documents which have been marked as exhibit 1 to 7 that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge against the petitioner, this Court after going through the same is of the considered view that by no stretch of imagination such finding of facts arrived at by both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court be termed as perverse and in the absence of the same, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.450 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.396 of 2016 as well as the judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision being without any merit, is dismissed. 9. The petitioner who is on bail is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from the date of this judgment, failing which, the learned trial court being the court of learned Additional Chief ( 2025:JHHC:26562 ) 6 Cr.Rev.No.1546 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the petitioner to undergo the sentence in connection with G.R. Case No.450 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No.396 of 2016. 10. Let a copy of this judgement and trial court record be sent to the court concerned. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj