MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 1293 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner on account of admitting his guilt was convicted under Sections 365 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and consequently was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also for one year for the offence under Sections 365 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The petitioner was also saddled with fine for each of the offences.

(2.) The facts giving rise this application are that on 30.11.2005, the petitioner came to the house of Srikant Soni and asked him to come to Bokaro to see a person who had promised for giving job to him. On such inducement, he accompanied the petitioner and came to Village- Maheshpur where two persons, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Ram Prasad Manjhi, joined them but instead of taking Srikant Soni to Bokaro confined him in a room in Village-Maheshpur, where this petitioner on the point ,6f revolver asked Srikant Soni to write a letter to his father asking him to bring Rs. 50,000/-. As he was under the threat of his life, he wrote a letter to his father. In the night; when all three accused persons fell asleep, the informant slipped away from there and came to C.I.S.F. personnel from where information was given to the Police Station telephonically. When the police came, he told about the occurrence, but they could not locate the place, as it was a dark night. However, in the next morning, they came to the same house, where Srikant Soni (informant) has been kept confined, and found all the three accused persons asleep. On search being made, the said letter written by the informant was recovered from the pocket of this petitioner. Accordingly, Srikant Soni submitted a written report on 1.12.2005 before the Officer In-charge, Harla Police Station upon which, a case was instituted as Harla P.S. Case No. 135 of 2005 under Sections 365, 346, 347, 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The petitioner was taken into custody and was remanded in the said Harla P.S. Case No. 135 of 2005 (G.R. No. 1293 of 2005). While the petitioner was in custody in connection with the aforesaid case, he was remanded in another case bearing Harla P.S. Case No. 19 of 2004 (G.R. No. 184 of 2004), which was pending from before, in which case he was convicted on 23.1.2006 for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Subsequently, when the petitioner was serving sentence, he was produced before the court in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 135 of 2005 (G.R. No. 1293 of 2005) on 5.4.2006 on which date, charges were framed under Sections 365, 384 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the case was fixed for 19.4.2006 for evidence. However, in the meantime, the court did receive a letter dated 14.4.2006 of the Superintendent of Jail, Chas informing therein that the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar is willing to confess his guilt. That letter was ordered to be kept on record. On 19.4.2006, when the petitioner and other two accused persons were produced from jail custody, this petitioner expressed his intention before the court to confess his guilt. Accordingly, his case was ordered to be separated from the case of two accused persons and then recorded the statement of the accused on a form meant for recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It does appear that before recording the plea of guilt, the court put question to the petitioner as to whether he wants to plead guilty voluntarily and then he seems to have answered in affirmative. Thereupon, it was asked by the court as to whether on 30.11.2005, he had come to the house of Srikant Soni (informant) and took him to Village-Maheshpur on the pretext of providing job to him where he on the point of revolver got a letter written from the informant asking Rs. 50,000/- from his father. The answer was in affirmative. Thereupon, the court passed the order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid,