NEPAL MONDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2001/141 of 2005 by which the judgment dated 16.02.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamtara in Kundahit P. S. Case No. 69 of 1998 corresponding to G. R. No. 409 of 1990 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed.

(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution. It has been stated that the wife of the petitioner had earlier instituted a case against the accused persons which was prior to the case instituted by the informant of the present case. Learned counsel submits that merely as a retaliation to the case earlier instituted by the wife of the petitioner, G. R. No. 409 of 1998 was instituted. It has also been stated that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are highly interested witnesses as P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 is sister and father of the informant respectively and P.W. 6 is the informant himself. Learned counsel also put forward an alternative argument that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence may suitably be modified considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution since the year 1998 and had remained for 2 months in custody.