2026:JHHC:25496 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 691 of 2017 -------- Md. Nizam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Rashid, resident of Village- Ledatand, P.O. & P.S.-Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- Dated: 24th August, 2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 3065 of 2006 (T.R. Case No.135 of 2009) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 28.09.2006 at 07:30 P.M., the informant, Binod Kumar was returning to his village on his motorcycle Bajaj CT-100 bearing registration No.JH- 2026:JHHC:25496 2 09D-4170 and when he reached near Bherka Bridge in Village Laxmipur, two miscreants suddenly emerged from the bushes. One of the miscreants removed the informant’s helmet and assaulted him on the head with the butt of knife and asked that he handover all the money in his possession. The other miscreant took the motorcycle towards the bushes. Thereafter, both the accused persons tied the informant to a tree with his shirt. The miscreants also snatched Rs.3500/- from the pocket of his shirt and wristwatch and threatened him with death if he informed the police. It is further alleged that the miscreants tried to start the motorcycle but were unable to do so. In the meantime, the informant got opportunity to untie himself from the tree and ran towards Community Hall of Village Laxmipur, where 25- 30 youth were attending a bhoj. He informed them about the occurrence and requested their help. While they were proceeding towards the place of occurrence, both the miscreants were coming on that route from the opposite direction on the motorcycle. The youths asked them to stop but the miscreants attempted to flee away. Some of the youths pushed them, causing them to fall down, where after they fled, leaving the motorcycle there. One of the miscreants was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Md. Nizam Ansari. He disclosed the name of other miscreant as Md. Gaffar Ansari. In the meantime, the police arrived at the spot and arrested the apprehended accused Md. Nizam Ansari and seized the motorcycle. On the basis of above information, Hariharpur, P.S. Case No. 2026:JHHC:25496 3 114 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 392 and 412 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 392 and 411 of the I.P.C. and the then learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the same. The substance of accusations was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. 5. In the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, which was upheld by learned Appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been assailed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that although, no concrete evidence has been adduced by the prosecution against the petitioner, but he has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has undergone into custody for more than two years in connection with the present case during the trial and post conviction. Therefore, he has been punished sufficiently for his guilt. 2026:JHHC:25496 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of custody already undergone. 9. On the other hand learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned 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 this case is stale one, of the year 2006 and the petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice. 10. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 392 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by learned Appellate Court is affirmed. But so far as sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 2006 and about two decades have been elapsed and out of three years imprisonment, he has already undergone for more than two years in custody, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from three years of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him. 2026:JHHC:25496 5 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 13. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 14. Pending I.A.s, if any stands disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 24.08.2026 Arpit Uploaded 25/08/2026