CRIMINAL REVISION No.973 of 2009 With Criminal Revision No.710 of 2009 With Criminal Revision No.730 of 2009 ------- Against the judgment dated 30-03-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge(F.T.C.-III),Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr.Appeals No.2/2009,3/2009 & 4/2009. ----------- RAMESH RAM,son of late Pardeshe Ram,resident of village-Rikhar,P.S.-Lalganj,Dist.-Vaishali…………… Petitioner (in Cr.Rev.No.973/2009) AJEET PRAKASH @ PAPPU,son of Shiv Prasad Singh, resident of village-Rasulpur,Korigaon,P.S.-Goraul, Dist.-Vaishali……Petitioner(in Cr.Rev.No.710/2009) RAMESH YADAV,s/o Sri Hardeo Rai,aged about 22 years, resident of village-Sathiauta, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, Dist.-Vaishali………………Petitioner (in Cr.Rev.No.730/2009) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR---------------Opposite party (in all the three cases) For the petitioner : M/s R.R.Prasad Singh & Sunil Kumar Jha,Advocates (in Cr.Rev.No.973 of 2009) For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey,A.P.P. (in all three cases) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ---------- Mandhata Singh,J.-As all the above three cases arise out of the same G.R.number and trial number, they are being taken up and heard together. All these above three revision applications have been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-III),Vaishali at Hajipur in 2 Cr.Appeals No.2/2009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2008 for the offence under Section 392 of the Penal Code passed by the Judicial Magistrict, Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in G.R.No.1181 of 2007, Tr.No.2348 of 2008. In the case FIR basing Fardbeyan of one Sanjay Kumar Paswan is in brief that he along with his relative Shivkumar Paswan was going to attend the marriage party of Ram Babu Paswan’s daughter on Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing Registration No.B.R.-1R-3147. When they reached half kilometre north from Madarsa towards Dharampur at about 9.30 p.m. four miscreants came on Motor cycle over taking them and after stopping them they took away their Motor cycle on the point of pistol. Two of them left the place with looted Motor cycle, while rest two with their own Motor cycle. Miscreants’ Motor cycle was noticed by the informant bearing Registration No.B.R.-06F/3050. Shivkumar Paswan, who accompanied the informant, identified all the accused persons as Ajit Prakash @ Pappu, Ramesh Yadav, Shambhu Paswan and Ramesh Ram. Three of them, namely Ramersh Yadav, Ajit Prakash and Ramesh Ram are petitioners as their conviction by the trial court under Sections 392 and 411 was 3 confirmed for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code only, though learned counsel for Ramesh Ram is there and he is satisfied if the period undergone by him is observed sufficient. He is in custody since 22.4.2007 for a period of more than two years and four months. Rests of the petitioners are also in custody since the same date but they have allowed bail by a Bench of this Court on 29.4.2009 and 30.4.2009. So, they also remained in custody for a period of more than two years. In the case stolen Motor cycle is recovered from the door of P.W.2 Harendra Paswan, who is stating about keeping the Motor cycle by one Shambhu Paswan and another i.e. corroborated by P.W.2 by examining himself. P.W.3 is a seizure list witness and fully corroborated the seizure of the Motor cycle and preparation of seizure list as well. P.Ws.4, 5, and 6 are hearsay witnesses but in corroboration of the prosecution case. P.W.7 is the informant of the case; he has also fully supported the prosecution case. P.Ws.8, 9, 10 and 11 are official either they have lodged the FIR or investigated the case. There is concurrent finding of the trial court as well as of the appellate court that witnesses are sufficient for conviction and I also 4 find no infirmity in concluding the conviction under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Further I agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner Ramesh Ram that the period undergone by him for more than two years and four months as well as by rest of the petitioners for more than two years is sufficient towards their sentence. Accordingly conviction and sentence upheld by the appellate court is affirmed and sentence is modified to the period undergone. They are exempted from fine also. In the result, all these three revision applications are disposed of with the above modification in sentence. As petitioner of Criminal Revision No.973 of 2009 Ramesh Ram is in jail, he is directed to be set at liberty at once, if not required in any other case. Let this judgment be communicated to the concerned court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. ( Mandhata Singh, J.) Patna High Court Dated the 14th September,2009 A.H./NAFR