Dismissed

Dumba Uraon v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2019Cr.A(SJ)/680/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against conviction and sentence under the Explosive Substance Act was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the possession of explosives, rejecting arguments about witness testimony and lack of investigating officer examination.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; conviction and sentence were affirmed; appellant's bail bond was cancelled.

Dumba Uraon Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.680 of 2004

¶3

(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge-II. C.B.I.(A.H.D.), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial case No. 109 of 2001).

¶4

Dumba Uraon, son of Chilku Oraon

¶5

resident of village- Millani, Police Station- Chanho,

¶6

District - Ranchi. … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶9

…...... For the Appellant : Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Amicus Curiae.

¶10

For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned

¶12

Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-II. C.B.I.(A.H.D.), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial case No. 109 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for offence committed and punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for four years. The period already undergone by the accused, Dumba Uraon during pendency of the trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. against the sentence. However by the same impugned judgment the accused/appellant has been acquitted from the charge under Section 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act by extending benefit of doubt.

¶14

3. The prosecution case is based upon self written report by Sub-Inspector of Police, Binesh Prasad Sharma(P.W.10) on 21.09.2000 at 18.00Hrs. at village-Mellani. The informant has alleged that he has received a confidential information that extremist group of M.C.C. are taking shelter in the village-Mellani. On this information under the leadership of Additional Superintendent of Police Headquarter, Mr. Ashish Batra, informant and other police personnels of Mandar Anchal and Mandar Police Station,

¶15

¶16

Chanho raid the village-Mellani at 16.00Hrs. On seeing the police the accused persons started fleeing away, but one of the accused was apprehended by the police, who disclosed his name as Dumba Uraon. In presence of independent witnesses namely, Lakshman Bhagat(P.W.4) and Fuldeo Bhagat(P.W.5) police gave their personal search and thereafter, started searching the house of Dumba Uraon. During search from the house of Dumba Uraon one sword, one Gupti, Two Nepali dagger, three wooden gun and from tin box, black explosive material 400 grams have been recovered wrapped and concealed in a plastic. The accused person could not give satisfactory reply of these articles nor produced any valid paper, as such after preparing the seizure list of the same articles in presence of independent witnesses, one copy of the seizure list has been handed over to Dumba Uraon and he was arrested.

¶17

4. On the basis of self statement of Sub-Inspector of Police, Binesh Prasad Sharma(P.W.10) as informant, Police has registered First Information Report bearing Chanho P.S. Case No. 40 of 2000, dated 21.09.2000, under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act against Dumba Uraon.

¶18

5. After completion of investigation, police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 68 of 2000 dated 18.12.2000, under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act against above named Dumba Uraon.

¶19

6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.12.2000 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 01.03.2001.

¶20

7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against Dumba Uraon on 17.08.2001, under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, to which Dumba Uraon has denied about his involvement and thus, he was put under trial.

¶21

8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether fourteen prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence.

¶22

Sanjay Kumar, Sub-Inspector-cum-Officer-In-Charge of Mandar Police Station has been examined as P.W.1, Shashi Ranjan Kumar, another Sub-Inspector of police of Mandar Police Station has been examined as P.W.2, Hawaldar Matu Ugrasundi has been examined as P.W.3, Lakhsman Bhagat, seizure witness, has been examined as P.W.4, Fuldeo Bhagat, another seizure witness, has been examined as

¶23

¶24

P.W.5, Sohrai Oraon, co-villager and an independent witness, has been examined as P.W.6 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Anslem Francis Soy, constable no. 1636 has been examined as P.W.7, Rabindra Paswan, constable no.236 has been examined as P.W.8, Sayed Bagis Ahmad, Scientific assistant, Forensic Laboratory, Ranchi, has been examined as P.W.9, Binesh Prasad Sharma, Sub-Inspector of police and informant of the case has been examined as P.W.10, Nawal Kishore Prasad constable no. 594 has been examined as P.W.11, Dina Bhagat, another independent witness and co-villager, has been examined as P.W.12, but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Mahabir Oraon, other independent witness, has been examined as P.W.13 but has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and Shyam Kumar Porhi, assistant posted at Deputy Commissioner Office, Ranchi, has been examined as P.W.14.

¶25

Signature of Lakshman Bhagat(P.W.4) on seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, entire Forensic Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit2, entire fardbeyan of formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, entire formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/1, entire seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4 and entire sanction order issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi, Mr. Sukhdeo Singh, I.A.S. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5.

¶26

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.01.2004, to which accused person has denied about the occurrence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶27

No defence witness has been examined nor any documentary evidence has been brought on record on behalf of defence.

¶28

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the

¶30

¶31

appellant before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the same.

¶32

11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha.

¶33

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

¶34

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that Investigating Officer, SubInspector, Prashu Ram Singh has not been examined in this case and as such, the accused/appellant has suffered serious prejudice because of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the accused/appellant did not get opportunity to cross-examine him so as to elucidate the fact to dispel the prosecution case, as the present case has been instituted on the self statement of Police Officer and all the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case are police personnels and as such, non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant.

¶35

Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that Lakshman Bhagat(P.W.4) and Fuldeo Bhagat(P.W.5) are the seizure witnesses and Lakshman Bhagat(P.W.4) has categorically stated that he has put his signature on a blank sheet and Fuldeo Bhagat(P.W.5) has categorically stated that he has put his left thumb impression on a paper without under standing the same, as per the direction of the Police Officer.

¶36

Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that Anslem Francis Soy(P.W.7) has also stated in paragraph-4 of his deposition that no such articles were seized in his presence to constitute an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶37

Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that sanction letter issued by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate Ranchi, Mr. Sukhdeo Singh, I.A.S. has been proved by assistant Shyam Kumar Porhi(P.W.14), which is not technically acceptable as an evidence and as such, the appellant may be acquitted from the charge and conviction passed under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶38

12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶39

Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the basis of

¶40

¶41

the materials available on record.

¶42

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Sanjay Kumar(P.W.1), Shashi Ranjan Kumar(P.W.2), Hawaldar Matu Urgasundi(P.W.3), Anslem Francis Soy(P.W7), Ravindra Paswan(P.W.8), Binesh Prasad Sharma(P.W.10) and Nawal Kishore Prasad(P.W.11) have supported the prosecution case being the member of police party, who have conducted raid in village Mellani and apprehended the accused, Dumba Uraon and after complying the legal procedure of their search by independent witness namely, Lakshman Bhagat(P.W.4) and Fuldeo Bhagat(P.W.5), police made a search in the house of the accused, Dumba Uraon and incriminating articles have been recovered, apart from black Explosive material wrapped in a plastic kept and concealed in a tin box, by the police. No any valid paper was shown by the accused, Dumba Uraon and after doing all the legal procedure, serving a copy of seizure list to accused, Dumba Uraon, accused was taken into custody and First Information Report has been lodged. Subsequently the seized materiel was sent to Forensic Science laboratory, Ranchi and as per the report of Forensic Science laboratory, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, showing low Explosive mixture of potassium Nitrate, Carbon and Sulphur, which are generally used to be loaded in gun cartridges as propellants and the said report of the Scientific laboratory, Ranchi containing FSL no.425 of 2000 dated 30.11.2000 has been proved by Syed Bagis Ahmad (P.W.9).

¶43

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the evidence of Lakshman Bhagat (P.W.4) and Fuldeo Bhagat (P.W.5) have never disputed the seizure of the materials from house of Dumba Uraon though the co-villagers have not supported the prosecution case, such as, Sohrai Oraon (P.W.6), Dina Bhagat (P.W.12) and Mahabir Oraon (P.W.13) as they have been declared hostile by the prosecution, but the evidence of the police personnels are consistent and as such, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶44

13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report, framing of

¶45

¶46

charge, evidence of fourteen prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits and statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶47

This Court has found that prosecution has able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against Dumba Uraon, as black material wrapped in a plastic kept and concealed in a tin box was recovered from house of the accused, Dumba Uraon by the police and the same was sent for chemical examination before Scientific laboratory, Ranchi and as per report (exhibited-2), it was found to be low Explosive mixture of potassium Nitrate, Carbon and Sulphur, which are generally used to be loaded in the gun cartridges as propellants. The sanction order has also been proved by Shyam Kumar Porhi(P.W.14). The defence has cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses but nothing has been elucidated during the cross-examination of any of the police witnesses or official witnesses like Scientific expert, who has proved the sanction order, to disbelieve the prosecution case. The police witnesses are official witness. They are consistent and their evidence cannot be ruled out unless and until the appellant/defence is able to cast any doubt about genuineness of their statement. The evidence of Anslem Francis Soy(P.W.7) that material was not seized before him does not disbelieve the prosecution case, all police personnels cannot see each and every event of the police raid and as such, this Court is of the view that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act for possessing Explosive under the suspicious circumstances.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge-II. C.B.I.(A.H.D.), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial case No. 109 of 2001, arising out of Chanho, P.S. Case No. 40 of 2000 corresponding to G. R. no. 2110 of 2000 is hereby upheld and affirmed.

¶49

14. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed without modification in sentence.

¶50

15. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled.

¶51

16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶52

¶53

17. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, is directed to release the admissible legal remuneration to Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with an application.

¶54

18. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for needful.

¶55

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 02.01.2019 Jay/-

Dumba Uraon v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dumba Uraon 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

Sunderlal Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand

Lankeshwar Murmu Alias Love Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Hulas Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Lal Muni Bhuiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalicharan Modi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Lambodar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand