Quashed

Bansi Lal Hazam v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./1140/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the conviction of the petitioner in an arms case due to serious infirmities, including the absence of spot sealing and specific marking on seized weapons, a discrepancy between the seized pistol and the ballistic report for a pipe gun, and unexamined witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of conviction is quashed, and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2003

¶4

¶5

Bansi Lal Hazam ….. …. Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ….. ….Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner :Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

¶10

For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Prabir Chaterjee, SPP

¶11

06/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.180 of 1998; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.2065 of 1992, T.R. No.655 of 1998; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) & 26 (1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year for each of the above offence and directed to run both the sentences concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed .

¶13

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 1.6.1992 one Mr. R.N. Kunwar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police along with other official posted at Bank More Police Station, while searching at about 1.00 P.M., a Tata Model 608 vehicle bearing No. WB-55-0322 was seen coming

¶14

¶15

rashly. It was stopped by the police and the driver was asked to produce the papers of the vehicle. The driver took out the papers one by one from the rekine bag in suspicious condition. On suspicion the informant took the bag in his hand in which he found a rifle cartridge. After recovery of cartridge personal search of the body of the driver was made and a country made pistol was also recovered from his waist. The driver could not produce any legal paper for the possession of the said arm. Thereafter, arm and a cartridge were seized by the police and accordingly seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses.

¶16

On the basis of aforesaid written report Bank More P.S. Case No.350/92 for the offence u/S 25(1-b)(a) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act was registered against the accused person and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally the petitioner has been convicted.

¶17

4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on following grounds:-

¶18

(i) The Investigating Officer as well as other raiding party were not examined except the informant of the case who is P.W.-4.

¶19

¶20

(ii) P.W.-4 has admitted that pipe gun, pistol and rifle are three different arms and admittedly, the Sergeant Major who has given his ballistic report after 26 days of occurrence is of pipe gun and it is also an admitted fact that the seized article was pistol which clearly transpires from FIR.

¶21

(iii) Both the seizure list witnesses have been declared hostile as they have stated that they have signed on a blank paper.

¶22

(iv) The cartridge allegedly recovered from the petitioner also finds discrepancy with respect to the number mentioned in the cartridge.

¶23

(v) Mr. Kumar further raised a legal question and submits that as per the settled preposition of law, seized article should be sealed on the spot and special marking should be made on the seized article and subsequently shall be sent to the Sergeant Major for its examination. In the instant case there is a gap in the chain, inasmuch as, the prosecution has failed to prove that the article was sealed on the spot and marking was done, which clearly transpires that after a gap of 26 days the Sergeant Major has examined the seized article so there is every chances of manipulation.

¶24

Relying upon the aforesaid contention he submits that when the article was not sealed on the spot and there is no link as to when it was sealed and when it was sent to the Arms expert for testing; the missing link

¶25

¶26

weakens the case of prosecution because tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out.

¶27

He concludes his argument by submitting that this serious infirmity has been ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court which makes the entire order perverse in nature because they have not at all considered the settled preposition of law with regard to sealing of arms and marking of the arms recovered.

¶28

5. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned Special P.P. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgments and contended that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts regarding conviction. He further submits that even in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has not reverted the fact that the arms has not been recovered from him; as such no interference is required.

¶29

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment including the LCR, it appears that the Investigating Officer as well as other raiding party except the informant have not been examined in this case. Further there is no iota of evidence to indicate that with whom the pistol was seized in the background that the seizure list witnesses have been declared hostile due to the statement that they have signed on the blank paper.

¶30

¶31

7. The prosecution has also failed to show by any document or evidence that as to when the seized article was sealed and specific mark was made and when it was sent to the Sergeant Major. It further transpires from record that in F.I.R it was categorically stated that the pistol has been seized from the petitioner whereas the Sergeant Major has given report on pipe gun.

¶32

8. The learned trial court should have considered this aspect of matter that pipe gun and pistol are two different things. It further transpires that the informant had admitted in pargraph-8 of his deposition that no specific mark was given on the sealed article at the place of occurrence. In this regard the law is well settled that seized article should be sealed on the spot and special marking should be made on the seized article.

¶33

Reference in this regard should be made in the case of Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 217 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by P.W.3 till it was sent to the Arms Expert for testing through constable Baita Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution case. For all these infirmities, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt”

¶34

¶35

9. All these things have been over looked by the learned Trial Court as well as the same mistake has been committed by the learned Appellate Court, inasmuch as, non-sealing of article and specific marking over that on the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. It further transpires that there is no evidence to indicate as to when the article was sealed, marked and with whom the said article was sent to the arms expert for testing. All these missing links/chain have been ignored by the learned court below; as such this application requires interference.

¶36

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions the judgment dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Appellate Court and the trial court judgment dated 06.11.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad, has no legs to stand in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶37

11. Order accordingly.

¶38

12 . The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶39

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶40

14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶41

Fahim /-

Bansi Lal Hazam v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansi Lal Hazam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subol Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Punu Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Savera Biwi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Mahendra Beldar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raghubir Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Subol Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar  Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Punu Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Savera Biwi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand