Partly allowed

Nafil Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Sept 2018Cr.Rev./182/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging conviction under IPC 307/147/148 and Arms Act. Court set aside convictions under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act due to injury nature and lack of efficacy proof. Maintained convictions under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. Reduced sentences to time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Convictions under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act set aside; convictions under Sections 147 and 148 IPC maintained; sentences reduced to period already undergone.

Nafil Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

Cr. Revision No. 182 of 2003

¶2

(Against the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 60 of 1998 )

¶3

Nafil Ansari

¶4

Rojamat Ansari

¶5

Khairat Ansari

¶6

Chnu @ Mahiruddin Ansari

¶7

Ibrahim Ansari

¶8

Ikbal Ansari ….. Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶14

…..... JUDGMENT

¶15

Anant Bijay Singh, J. Initially, the instant criminal revision was filed on behalf of the eight petitioners, namely, Jahangir Ansari, Nafil Ansari, Jaffar Ali Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari, Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari, Ibrahim Ansari and Iqbal Ansari, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 60 of 1998 by Sri B.Z. Ansari, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga whereby and whererunder the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.1998 passed by Sri Shyam Sundar Ray, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 660/1991, T.R. No. 5/1992 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lohardaga had convicted the petitioners under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted six petitioners namely, Jahangir Ansari, Nafil Ansari, Jaffar Ali Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari and Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted the petitioners namely Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. The learned court below however, sentenced all the petitioners to undergo R/I for 5 years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, further, sentenced the petitioners namely Jahangir Ansari, Nafil Ansari, Jaffar Ali Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari and Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari to undergo R.I for 6 months under

¶16

-2-

¶17

section 147 I.P.C and two petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Iqbal Ansari to undergo R.I for 1 year under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced these two petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari to undergo R.I for two years under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶18

This criminal revision has been filed on 27.02.2003 and under order dated 05.03.2003 the criminal revision has been admitted and during pendency of the application, petitioners were admitted on bail and LC.R was called for.

¶19

It appears that during the pendency of this criminal revision petitioner- Jahangir Ansari has died on 23.03.2005 and petitioner Jaffar Ali Ansari has died on 05.08.2011 thereafter under order dated 21.06.2018 the name of petitioner- Jahangir Anari and petitioner Jaffar Ali Ansari was ordered to be deleted.

¶20

Now the criminal revision application is confined to the remaining six petitioners.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that petitioners have been held guilty under section 307 I.P.C simplicitor and sentenced to undergo R.I for five years and this fact is reflected in the evidence of P.W.7 who has received injury, but the trial court did not frame the charge under section 307/34 I.P.C and in alternative under section 307/149 I.P.C and this fact has not been considered either by the trial court or by the appellate Court. Further, it has been submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider the statements of the petitioners recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the conviction is not sustainable and the impugned judgment is liable to be setaside.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the evidence of P.W.-12 Dr. J.E. Tigga, who has examined the injured Alam Ansari, but he did not found any grievous injury, rather he has found the injury as follows:

¶23

(i) Slightly restricted movement of neck due to pain. No external injury.

¶24

(ii) Pain on the occipital region on the head on applying pressure.

¶25

(iii) Pain all over the back, Restriction of movement of shoulder plate.

¶26

-3-

¶27

It is submitted that the cause of injuries is kick and fist blows and the nature of injury was found to be simple. It was submitted that prima facie both the courts have failed to consider the fact that the injuries are simple in nature and not on the vital parts. So offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out.

¶28

Learned APP has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is concurrent findings of both the courts below.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari were also held guilty under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act for recovery of one pistol and one cartridge, but no blastic expert has been examined bringing on record the fact of effectiveness of the arms recovered, although prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and this fact has not been controverted by learned APP.

¶30

After hearing the parties and on careful perusal of the records and evidences, I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested upon them.

¶31

After scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that P.W.-12 Doctor, has found the injuries to be simple in nature and not on the vital parts of the injured. Both the courts below have also considered the fact that no expert has been examined in the case to establish the effective working condition of the arms recovered. So the conviction of the petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari cannot sustained.

¶32

Accordingly, conviction and sentence of all the petitioners under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and conviction and sentence of petitioners Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act are hereby set aside.

¶33

However, I find that the petitioners namely, Nafil Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari and Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari have been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari have been rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 148 of the I.P.C., by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. So, the conviction of the petitioners namely, Nafil Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari

¶34

-4-

¶35

and Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and conviction of the petitioners namely, Ibrahim Ansari and Ikbal Ansari under Section 148 of the I.P.C. are maintained.

¶36

From perusal of the record, it further transpires that four petitioners namely, Nafil Ansari, Rojamat Ansari, Khairat Ansari and Chnua @ Mahiruddin Ansari have remained in jail custody from 24.04.1991 to 29.04.1991 (11 days), 29.04.1998 to 14.05.1998 (15 days) during trial and from 25.02.2003 to 05.03.2003 (08 days) after conviction i.e. for total 35 days. The petitioner Ibrahim Ansari has remained in jail custody for a total period of 04 months & 5 days and petitioner Ikbal Ansari has remained in jail custody for a total period of 02 months & 05 days and all the petitioners have also suffered the rigours of the trial since 1991 i.e. for about 27 years.

¶37

So, justice would met, if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶38

Under the circumstances, this criminal revision is dismissed with modification in the sentence of the petitioners awarded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court to the period already undergone by them.

¶39

The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

¶40

Let the LCR be transmitted to the court below forthwith.

¶41

Jharkhand High Court Dated/26/09/2018 Sunil/

¶42

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Nafil Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafil Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

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

Bhola Chouhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Sharma Alias Niranjan Kumar Sharma And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tilak Dhari Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand

Keshav Kishore Alias Keshav Kishor Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nageshwar Rana Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand