Allowed

Somra Karmali v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2018Cr.Rev./672/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside an impugned judgment confirming a conviction under the Arms Act. Finding that lower courts failed to appreciate the non-support of several prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was acquitted and discharged from bail liabilities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment confirming conviction was set aside; the petitioner was acquitted and discharged from bail bond liabilities.

Somra Karmali Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

Cr. Revision No. 672 of 2002

¶2

… … (Against the judgment dated 22.08.2002 passed by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 1997. )

¶3

Somra Karmali ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepankar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. ---------

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶6

…..... JUDGMENT

¶7

Anant Bijay Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶8

and learned APP for the State.

¶9

Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.08.2002 passed by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.1997 passed by learned JM, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 340 of 1996 and T.R. No. 611 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the court below convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 24(1-b) Arms Act to undergo R.I. for two years and also fine Rs. 500/- and convicted and sentenced him under Section 26(1) Arms Act to undergo R.I. for one year and also a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine amount under Section 25 (1-b) sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and also in default of payment under Section 26 (1) Arms Act petitioner has to undergo imprisonment for three months, has been confirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶10

From perusal of the record, it appears that this Criminal Revision Application was filed on 03.12.2002 and the same was admitted for hearing on 14.02.2003 and the LCR was called for and during pendency of the criminal revision, petitioner was admitted on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per allegation of prosecution, only one live cartridge has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that one of the seizure list witness P.W.-6 namely Kameshwar Prasad Singh has not supported the case

¶12

-2-

¶13

of prosecution and P.W. -7 namely, Ajit Kumar Choubey and P.W. - 8 namely Balak Vishawakarma have also not supported the case of prosecution and independent witness namely, Tulsi Ram has also not supported the case of prosecution. It is submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate these facts while passing the judgments and thereby the courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested upon them.

¶14

Learned APP, after going through the record, has submitted that the P.W.-6 has not supported the case of prosecution.

¶15

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 22.08.2002 passed by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1997 confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 340 of 1996 and T.R. No. 611 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.

¶16

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed

¶17

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below and also LCR be transmitted to the court below forthwith.

¶18

Jharkhand High Court Dated/04/09/2018 Sunil/

¶19

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Somra Karmali v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somra Karmali 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shatrughan Prasad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunil Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Alias Raja Vishwakarma Alias Rajesh Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taj Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biswadip Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Singh Alias Munan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand