Dismissed

Chhotu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2023Cr.Rev./1104/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed four criminal revision applications filed by Chhotu Kujur, Ajay Kachhap, Om Prakash Singh, and Jai Pal Sahu against a judgment upholding their conviction under the Arms Act. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that firearms were recovered from their possession during a raid.

What did the court decide?

All revision applications are dismissed. Pending I.A. stands disposed of.

Chhotu Kujur Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1104 of 2010

¶2

Chhotu Kujur ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 450 of 2010 Ajay Kachhap ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 512 of 2010 Om Prakash Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 641 of 2010 Jai Pal Sahu ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party --CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath ---

¶3

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate [Cr. Rev. 450/10&512/10] Ms. Kavita Kumar, Amicus Curiae [Cr. Rev. 641/2010] For the State: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha & Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P

¶4

09 / 20.07.2023 All the aforesaid revision application arise out of the same impugned judgment. As such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

¶5

Petitioner-Chhotu Kujur in Cr. Revision No. 1104/2010, petitioner-Ajay Kachhap in Cr. Revision No. 450/2010, petitioner-Om Prakash Singh in Cr. Revision No. 512/2010 and petitioner-Jai Pal Sahu in Cr. Revision No. 641/2010, have filed these revision applications against the judgement dated 26.02.2010, passed by Shri D.N. Upadhyay, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (As His Lordship was then) in Cr. Appeal No. 149/2009, Cr. Appeal No. 114/2009 and Cr. Appeal No. 111/2009 respectively, disposing of all the three criminal appeals by a common judgment, whereby and wherein, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dismissed the appeals of the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2009, passed by Shri Amit Shekhar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 108/2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 1979/01, holding the petitioners guilty of the offences under sections 25(1-B) a and 26 of the Arms

¶6

¶7

Act and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I for three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 25(1-B), a of the Arms Act and R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- for the offence under section 26 of the Arms Act without any default stipulation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶8

Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement of the Informant Akhileshwar Choube, Officer-in-charge of Lalpur Police Station, alleging therein that on 17.07.2001 at about 11.45 pm, he received confidential information that some persons were sitting in the shed of meat shop situated on the western side of Distillery Bridge in suspicion circumstances. On which, Informant along with the police party raided the place of occurrence. All the four accused / petitioners were apprehended. On search, one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Chhotu Kujur, one 6 M.M pistol loaded with three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Ajay Kachhap, one loaded country made pistol with one live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner Om Prakash Singh and one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Jai Pal Sahu. Seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence itself, copy of which was also handed over to the petitioners.

¶9

In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.

¶10

The Informant Akhileshwar Chaube has been examined as P.W-3. He has stated that in the midnight of 18.07.2001, on the basis of confidential information, meat shop near Distillery Bridge was raided and four persons were apprehended. The apprehended persons disclosed their names as Jai Pal Sahu, Ajay Kachhap, Chhotu Kujur and Om Prakash Singh. He has proved his self statement which has been marked as Ext.-1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that seizure witnesses were passersby. He has further stated that he has prepared the seizure list at the place of occurrence itself.

¶11

Karuna Sankar Dubey (P.W-1), Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W-2), Anil Kumar Pandey (P.W-5) and Sri Niwas (P.W-9) all were members of the raiding party. Karuna Sankar Dubey (P.W-1) has stated that on 18.01.2001 on the basis of confidential information, raid was conducted in the shed of meat shop near Distillery Bridge and four persons namely, Om Prakash Singh, Ajay Kachhap, Chhotu Kujur and Jai Pal Sahu were apprehended. He has stated that one

¶12

¶13

loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Jai Pal Sahu, six round country made revolver was recovered from the possession of Ajay Kachhap, one country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Om Prakash Singh while one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Chhotu Kujur. He has identified the petitioners in the dock.

¶14

Similarly, Bipin Kumar Singh (P.W-2) has stated that firearms were recovered from the four persons.

¶15

Anil Kumar Pandey (P.W-5) has stated that firearms were recovered from the possession of all the accused persons. He has identified the petitioner Jai Pal Sahu in the dock who was present at the place of occurrence. He also claimed to identify the remaining petitioners.

¶16

Sri Niwas (P.W-9) has also stated that country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Jai Pal Sahu, one loaded country pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Ajay Kachhap, one loaded country made pistol and one live cartridge was recovered from the possession of Om Prakash Singh while loaded country made pistol with a live cartridge and Bhujali was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Chhotu Kujur.

¶17

All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. There is nothing in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.

¶18

Prakritik Kr. Bhagat (P.W-8) is a formal witness. He has produced the recovered firearms which have been marked material exhibits. 9. Ashok Kumar Pathak (P.W-7) is an expert who has examined the seized firearms. He has stated that all the recovered firearms were in working condition. He has proved his report which has been marked as Ext.-3. 10. Bhola Prasad (P.W-4) is the seizure witness. He has been declared hostile. He has stated that his signature was taken on the seizure list after 2-3 days from the date of occurrence. 11. Brajesh Tiwary (P.W-6) is another seizure witness. He has identified his signature on the seizure list. 12. From perusal of the seizure list (Ext.-1), it transpires that on 18.7.2001, at about 12.30 midnight, a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Jai Pal Sahu, six round country made revolver was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Ajay Kachhap, a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Om Prakash Singh and a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of

¶19

¶20

the petitioner Chhotu Kujur. Copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the petitioners.

¶21

From perusal of the report of the ballistic expert (Ext.-3), it transpires that all the firearms which were examined by him, were in working condition. It also appears that finding of the ballistic expert corroborates his oral testimony made in the court.

¶22

The sanction order for prosecution of the petitioners is Ext.4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi, after perusal of the materials placed before him, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.

¶23

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioners that the petitioners were apprehended on 18.07.2001 from the shed of the meat shop near Distillery Bridge and on search, firearms as alleged were recovered from their possession. One of the seizure witnesses namely Bhola Prasad (P.W-4) has stated that he has signed the seizure list after 2-3 days from the date of occurrence. Occurrence is said to have taken place in the midnight of 17/18.07.2001. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has signed the FIR as well as seizure list on 19.07.2001. It cannot be conjured that Bhola Prasad (P.W-4) had gone to the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi where he signed the seizure list. His statement that he was not present at the place of occurrence and he had signed the seizure list after two days, is falsified.

¶24

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the findings regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, does not require any interference by this court. 17. Accordingly, all the revision applications are dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae during course of hearing of Cr. Revision No. 641/2010. Learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 3,500/- by way of remuneration to Ms. Kavita Kumari for the services rendered by her as an Amicus Curiae in this case.

¶26

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶27

Ranjeet/

Chhotu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Kujur 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

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhamanand Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Hare Ram Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Binod Kumar Sao  Binod Kumar Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhamanand Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Hare Ram Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah Vs State of Jharkhand