CHHOTU SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and learned Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.09.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 1994 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.01.1994 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in Complaint Case No. 404 of 1989 (T.R. No. 1388 of 1993/707 of 1994), has been dismissed, but while the conviction u/s 452 and 354 I.P.C. was affirmed, the sentenced was reduced u/s 452 I.P.C. to 01 year in place of 2 years and 01 years in place of one and half years u/s 354 I.P.C.

(3.) It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was having illicit relationship with one Sanjho Singh, which was objected by the petitioner who is brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant and due to that reason he has falsely been implicated in the instant case at the instance of Sajho Singh. Learned counsel further submits although several persons were in the vicinity, no independent witnesses have been examined in this case and in the trial two witnesses who have been examined are the complainant herself and her son and they are the interested witnesses. Learned counsel further argued that the property in question was a joint property and therefore no offence u/s 452 I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel furthering his argument has submitted that in the alternative if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioner is facing rigours of criminal case since 1989 and he had remained in custody for a considerable period.