In criminal revision, the High Court found that courts below failed to examine key witnesses including the ballistic expert and seizure list witnesses. Based on social investigation reports showing no prior criminal record, the revision was allowed.
Impugned judgment set aside, petitioner acquitted, and discharged from bail liabilities.
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. 52 of 1999 (R)
… … (Against the judgment dated 08.12.1998 passed by learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 1997 )
Rajiv Kumar Nandi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ….. Opp. Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
….....
JUDGMENT
Anant Bijay Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 08.12.1998 passed by learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 02.09.1997 passed by learned JM, 1st Class, Ranchi in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 68 of 1994, G.R. No. 1851 of 1994 and T.R. No. 494 of 1997, whereby the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of three years each along with fine of Rs. 500/- each and for default of payment of fine, 15 days simple imprisonment and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been confirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
It appears that under order dated 02.08.2018, social investigation report from the court of learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi or its successor Court regarding economic status, criminal antecedent and status of family of the petitioner was called for and the same was directed to be collected from the District Probation Officer, Ranchi.
Perused the office note dated 28.09.2018, which reveals that social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer, Ranchi to the court of Sri. S.N. Mishra, 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter no. 270 dated 14.09.2018 has been received and is kept at Flag-'B'.
-2-
Report of Probation Officer, Ranchi dated 14.09.2018 reveals that officers had visited the ancestral house of the petitioner Rajiv Kumar Nandi at Tharpakna, where the local residents did not provide any information to them, but they disclosed that the petitioner along with his family is residing somewhere else outside Ranchi for the last 10 years. The Probation Officer further stated that the records of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi also does not reveal any criminal antecedent lodged against the petitioner except this case.
A supplementary social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer, Ranchi to this Court vide Letter No. 284 dated 27.09.2018 is kept at Flag-'K', which reveals that the petitioner is presently residing at Ramnagar, Kokar under Sadar P.S. in a rented house and is the head of a middle class family and as per the records of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent, except this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing on merits submitted that both the trial court and appellate court have failed to consider the fact that the seizure list witnesses have not been examined and further it appears that Sergeant Major, who submitted the ballistic expert report of the seized arm i.e. Exhibit-3, was not examined, rather P.W.-3 Constable was examined by prosecution who has proved the ballistic expert report of Sergeant Major. It is further submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts by not proving the evidence in accordance with law and both the courts have committed material illegality and have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested upon them.
Learned APP, after going through the record, has submitted that there is concurrent finding of the courts below, so no interference is required.
After hearing the parties and after perusing the evidences on record, I find considerable force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
-3-
petitioner that the Sergeant Major who had submitted the ballistic report regarding effectiveness of the country made pistol was not examined and seizure list witnesses have also not been examined by the prosecution. The social investigation reports reveals that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent except this case.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly both the courts below have failed to consider the evidences on record and also failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested upon them. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 08.12.1998 passed by 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1997 confirming the judgment dated 02.09.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. No. 1851 of 1994 and T.R. No. 494 of 1997 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges framed against him and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below and also LCR be transmitted to the court below forthwith.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Jharkhand High Court Dated/04/10/2018 Sunil/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment confirming conviction under the Arms Act should be set aside due to failure to examine witnesses and exercise jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner should be acquitted and discharged from bail liabilities due to evidentiary lapses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv Kumar Nandi
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
