PANKAJ PODDAR @ SUNDAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Pankaj Poddar @ Sunday, Sumit Kumar @ Time Pass @ Term Pass who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and independently directed to undergo S.I. for 2 years, S.I. for 3 years, S.I. for 3 years respectively under each count with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 24.12.2012 passed by Sri M.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani, in G.R. No.2964 of 2011 coupled with the judgment dated 14.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Madhubani in Cr. Appeal No.6 of 2013 dismissing the same, challenge the successive judgments under present revision.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that they were not at all seen by any of the witnesses during course of commission of burglary and on account thereof, the conviction recorded under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 457 of the Indian Penal Code happens to be bad, illegal and not supported with the material having on the record. It has further been submitted that no offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is made out because of the fact that the articles alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners did not happens to be subject matter of instant case. It has further been submitted that the prosecution case is suffering from so many improbability. The first and foremost happens to be that in case petitioners were the culprit then remaining at J.N. College Campus having being in their possession to be apprehended was not a digestible one. It has further been submitted that neither petitioners were suspect nor any complain was subsisting since before against them. Then in the aforesaid background, trapping of petitioners at J.N. College Campus appears to be a mysterious circumstance. None of the witnesses have disclosed that they have any sort of grievance against the petitioners. The police official who had apprehended the petitioners have not been examined, therefore the apprehension of petitioners remained unexplained.

(3.) Continuing with the submission on this score, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that police had gone to J.N. College Campus and apprehended petitioner Pankaj Poddar @ Sunday whose name finds place in the written report submitted by Madhuri Devi (PW-6). The written report is completely silent with regard to apprehension of Sumit Kumar @ Time Pass @ Term Pass. However, the seizure list suggests apprehension of both the petitioners as well as recovery there from. This inconsistency clearly suggests false implication.