Held that the criminal revision application challenging the conviction and sentence under the Arms Act did not merit allowance finding no illegality in the courts below. The application was dismissed.
The criminal revision application was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. Revision No. 683 of 2005 (R)
Against the judgment dated 15.03.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. 1, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 2003.
Versus The State of Jharkhand. ……. Opposite Party --For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, APP -----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
By Court No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., is present. Since this application is pending since 2005, same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record.
This application is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. 1, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 2003, whereby and whereunder judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gumla in G.R. No. 338 of 2001 (A) convicting the petitioner for the offence under sections 25(1-b) a 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to various terms has been affirmed.
An FIR was instituted on the allegation that on 29.5.2001, police got a confidential information that some extremists had gathered in the house of one Ram Pratap Binjhia. Pursuant to the said information, a raiding party was constituted. It is alleged that on hearing the sound of a police jeep, extremists started fleeing away and out of them two persons fell down being the petitioners, who were apprehended and on search made from their house, arms were recovered.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No. 338 of 2001(A) arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No. 15 of 2001 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of chargesheet and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed and trial proceeded. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the
-2-
prosecution.
P.W-1-Mangal Singh Hansda, P.W-2-Awadesh Kumar, P.W-3Firoz Alam and P.W-4-Ram Eqbal Ram, are all police personnels and they were members of the raiding party. These witnesses have stated about the secret information received, pursuant to which, a raid was conducted and apprehension of two petitioners, who were trying to flee away. These witnesses have stated about the recovery of arms from inside the house of the petitioners.
P.W-5-Ram Narayan Singh did not support the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile.
P.W-6-Bisheshwar Singh is a seizure list witness, who has also been declared hostile.
P.W-7-Tripurari Singh and P.W-8-Lahru Singh have also been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case.
P.W-9-Kedar Nath Ram has stated that he received an information about gathering of some MCC extremists at villageUmran, Baithadeepa. This witness had entered station diary entry no. 258 and along with police personnels raided the village. He has further stated that on hearing the sound of jeep, extremists started fleeing away but two persons were apprehended being Jainath Singh Binjhia and Kuwar Singh Binjhia. On search of the house of these persons, single barrel gun was recovered from the roof of the room and three live cartridges along with two empty cartridges were recovered from beneath the bed.
P.W-10-Ramashish Baitha has proved the live cartridges, which have been marked as Ext-1/1, 1/3, Ext-1/4 and 1/5.
Defence had taken the plea before the learned trial court that since the seizure list witnesses-P.W-6 and P.W-8 have been declared hostile by the prosecution, petitioners could not have been convicted under the Arms Act. Further plea has been taken that most of the witnesses were the members of the raiding party and two of the independent witnesses being P.Ws. 5 and 7 had been declared hostile and therefore conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence given by the police personnels, who all are interested witnesses. Further stand has been taken that Sergeant Major has not been examined and therefore no reliance can be placed on the statement given by him. Further submission has been made before the learned trial court that there is no evidence to conclude that the
-3-
house from where the gun and cartridges were recovered, belongs to the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has submitted that most of the witnesses have categorically stated about the raid conducted and recovery of gun, live cartridges as well as empty cartridge from inside the house.
Raiding party members have been examined as P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9. All these witnesses have stated about the raid conducted at village-Umra Toli Dhaudha Dipa on receiving secret information about the gathering of some MCC extremists and thereafter it is stated that all the MCC extremists managed to flee away except the petitioners and on their pointing out, gun and cartridges were recovered from inside the house. Although P.Ws. 6 and 8 being the seizure list witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and had been declared hostile but P.W-6Bisheshwar Singh has accepted his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext-1. No doubt, independent witnesses P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case but merely on such conclusion, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved as consistent evidence has been brought on record by the police personnels. It further appears that Lalan Prasad Singh, the then Sergeant Major, and Ballastic expert, had examined both the articles and found them functional, for which there is a report, which has been marked as Ext-5. Sanction for prosecution had also been granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, which has been marked as Ext-6. Place of occurrence has also sufficiently been proved by the Investigating Officer as P.W-9 in course of his evidence. Thus, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record substantiate the allegation against the petitioner.
In such circumstances, therefore, neither of the learned courts below had committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the petitioners for the offence under sections 25(1-b) a 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentencing them accordingly and therefore having found no merit in this application, same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 5th October, 2017 Rakesh/NAFR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision application challenging the conviction and sentence under the Arms Act has merit.
Whether the trial court and appellate court committed any illegality in convicting the petitioners based on the evidence available.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kunwar Singh Binjhia and Jainath Singh Binjhia
The State of Jharkhand
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
