Allowed

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018CRLA/4687/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court examined the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act. Finding the prosecution failed to substantiate charges due to evidence contradictions and lack of previous sanction, the court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 25 Arms Act set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved On 23.02.2018 Delivered On 15.03.2018

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4687 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- Rizwan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- K.M. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Court No. 4 Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 2000 (State Vs. Tajuddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 269/1999 under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred to as “I.P.C.”) and Crime No. 270/1999 under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, Etawah, whereby appellant Rizwan was convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further six months. By the impugned judgment co-accused Akbar was also convicted under Section 4/25 Arms Act and sentence to period already undergone and appellant Rizwan and co-accused Tajuddin and Akbar were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶6

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.06.1999, S.S.I. Jawahar Singh, constable Tileshwar Nath Pandey, constable Amar Lal and constable Chandra Bhan Singh were on patrolling duty sitting in government jeep. Rakesh Kumar Sharma was driver of that jeep. In intervening night of 05.06.1999 at about 2:00 a.m. at Shashtri Chowk. Informer informed them that three miscreants having knife and country made pistol (Tamancha) are standing in front of Mal Godam to commit loot. In the meantime, S.I. Manoj Kumar Rai, Constable Anil Kumar, Ramautar Singh, constable Arvind Kumar, constable Namwar Singh, Brijesh Tiwari, Brijesh Kumar and other police officials also came there by jeep. They were also informed about the information received from informer. Police personnel tried to search public witness but no public witness was ready to go with them. Police personnel went on spot and flashed torch light towards miscreants and asked them to surrender but miscreants opened fire on police personnel. Any how they saved themselves from the fire and sustained no injury. Applicant and co-accused Tajuddin were apprehended by the police on the spot. Co-accused Akbar fled away from the spot. A country made pistol (Tamancha) 315 bore and fired empty bullet was recovered from the possession of appellant. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot and on the basis of

¶7

¶8

recovery memo, on 05.06.1999 at 4:00 a.m., first information report was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Etawah.

¶9

3. After investigation police has submitted charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. against appellant and co-accused Tajuddin, Akbar, under Section 25 Arms Act against applicant Rizwan and under Section 4/25 Arms Act against co-accused Akbar.

¶10

4. Learned trial court has framed charges under Section 307/34 against applicant and co-accused Tajuddin and Akbar, under Section 25 Arms Act against applicant Rizwan and under Section 4/25 Arms Act against co-accused Akbar and explained charges to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶11

5. To substantiate charges against the accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 Constable Namwar Yadav, PW-2 Sub Inspector Anil Kumar, PW-3 Sub Inspector Jawahar Singh as a witnesses of facts and PW-4 Constable Arivaran Singh (Subscriber) of chik F.I.R. and PW-5 Sub Inspector Rajendra Yadav (Investigating Officer) as formal witnesses.

¶12

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated to have been falsely implicated.

¶13

7. The defence did not lead any evidence, whatsoever.

¶14

8. Upon detailed consideration of evidence on record, learned trial court has passed the impugned order.

¶15

9. Aggrieved by the order of learned trial Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

¶16

10. Heard Shri K. M. Mishra, learned counsel for appellants and Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶17

11. Learned counsel for appellants contended that on the same evidence, appellant and other co-accused have been acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Prosecution under Section 3/25 Arms Act has been instituted against appellant without previous sanction of the District Magistrate. There is no public witnesse of alleged occurrence. There is also material contradictions in the statemetns of witnesses of facts. Learned trial court has passed impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence on record, which is not sustainable.

¶18

12 . Per contra, learned A.G.A. Contended that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by trial court and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

¶20

13. On the basis of material contradiction in the statement of witnesses of facts, learned trial court found that the story of causing fire on police personnel by appellant and other co-accused is doubtful. PW-1 Constable Namwar Yadav and PW-2 Sub Inspector Anil Kumar could not explain and describe place of occurrence, and dimensions of road on spot. If the appellant and other co-accused were apprehended by the police at that spot, it was not difficult to police personnel to explain spot and dimensions of road on spot.

¶21

14. Although in receover memo, it is mentioned that police personnel had tried to search public witness but in their statements before court PW-1 Namwar Yadav and PW-2 Sub Inspector Anil Kumar could not narrate name of a single person to whom they asked to become witness of recovery. Here, it must be noted that there was more than 15 police personnels on the spot. Although it is not mentioned in the recovery memo that how many shots have been fired by miscreants but none of the police personnels sustained any injury. Police personnel have also not made any fire in defense. This prosecution version appears to be unnatural and doubtful.

¶22

15 . PW-5 Sub Inspector R.S. Yadav (Investigating Officer), in his cross examination admitted this fact that after filing charge-sheet, District Magistrate has accorded sanction for prosecution of appellant under Section 25 Arms Act. As per provision of Section 39 Arms Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for offence under Section 3 of Arms Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. In the present case, prosecution has been instituted against the appellant without previous sanction of District Magistrate.

¶23

16 . For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that prosection has miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant/accused and he is liable to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.

¶24

17. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Conviction of appellant Rizwan under Section 25 Arms Act is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. Katta and kartoos shall be destroyed after three months. The appellant is on bail, he shall not be taken into custody. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶25

18. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Etawah for its compliance. Let the lower court's record be remitted back to the court concerned.

¶26

Date:- 15.03.2018 Sharad/(Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suneel Kumar Seth Vs State of U.P.