Lankesh Kumar Singh Alias Lankesh Kr Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1398 of 2016

Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh ... … Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

For the Petitioner : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ---------

¶5

C.A.V. on 19.12.2023 Pronounced on 05.01.2024

¶6

Heard the parties.

¶7

2. The petitioner Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 30.07.2016, passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saraikella in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2010, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saraikella, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2010, passed by Sri P. K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella in G.R. Case No.86 of 2000, arising out of Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No.19 of 2000, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26(1) of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for four months. The learned trial court has further sentenced the petitioner to undergo S.I. for six months alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to runconcurrently.

¶8

3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement of the informant namely Shiv Narayan Ram police officer posted at Adityapur police station alleging therein that on 17.02.2000 at about 1:00 P.M., he received confidential information that the petitioner Lankesh Kumar Singh @ Lankesh Kr. Singh has kept firearm in his house. On the basis of this information house of Lankesh Kumar Singh

¶9

-2-

¶10

@ Lankesh Kr. Singh was raided and on search a country made gun of twelve bore and four cartridges were recovered. The petitioner was apprehended, he did not produce any documents to possess the recovered firearm. Accordingly, this case was registered.

¶11

4. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶12

5. From the perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that Shiv Narayan Ram P.W.5 is the informant of this case. He has supported the allegation as made out in his self report. He has stated that on 17.02.2000 at about 1:00 P.M., he received confidential information that the petitioner has kept firearm in his house. On the basis of this information house of the petitioner was raided. He was apprehended and on search a country made gun and four live cartridges were recovered. He has proved the seizure list which is Exhibit-1/2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner and his family members were present in the house at the time of raid. He has admitted that the seized firearms were not sealed at the place of occurrence. He has further stated that there was no material to seal the recovered firearm so they were not sealed.

¶13

6. Tarun Kumar P.W.3 and Dipak Kumar P.W.4 were members of the raiding party. They have supported the prosecution case and stated that on 17.02.2000 at about 1:00 P.M., on the basis of confidential information house of the petitioner was raided and on search a country made gun and four live cartridges were recovered from there.

¶14

Tarun Kumar P.W.3 in his cross-examination, has stated that the seized firearms were kept on the roof of the toilet. He has further stated that he had not gone inside the toilet.

¶15

Dipak Kumar P.W.4, in his cross-examination, has stated that the entire search and seizure took five minutes. At paragraph-12 he has stated that the seized gun and cartridges were not sealed at the place of occurrence.

¶16

-3-

¶17

Narendra Shankar P.W.6 is the investigating office of this case. He has proved the place of occurrence which is house of the petitioner. He has further proved the report of ballistic expert which is Exhibit 1/3. He has further proved that sanction order which is Exhibit-1/4.

¶18

Vakil Singh P.W.1 and Anand Prakash P.W.2 are the seizure witnesses, they have identified their signature on the seizure list, which are Exhibit-1 series.

¶19

Vakil Singh P.W.1 in his cross-examination, has stated that he had signed the seizure list in the police station after two days.

¶20

Anand Prakash P.W.2 has stated that nothing was recovered in his presence.

¶21

7. From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that seizure list is Exhibit-1. From the perusal of which it appears that twelve bore country made gun and four live cartridges were recovered from house of this petitioner. The petitioner has signed the seizure list.

¶22

8. The report of sergeant major is Exhibit1/3 which shows that the recovered firearm was in working condition. Exhibit-1/4 is the sanction order issued by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum Chaibasa for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) (a)/26(1) of the Arms Act.

¶23

9. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that the firearm allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner was not sealed at the place of occurrence.

¶24

10. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab as reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 217 :- wherein it was held that “non sealing of revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity causing the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out”

¶25

11. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of this court passed in Cr. Revision No. 696 of 2008. Nisar Ansari versus State of Jharkhand :- wherein a single bench of this court relying upon the judgment of Amarjeet Singh case (Supra) allowed the criminal revision

¶26

-4-

¶27

under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act as the seized firearms were not sealed at the place of occurrence.

¶28

12. In the present case, it is admitted that the seized firearms were not sealed at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, the whole factum of recovery of firearm becomes doubtful. I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under sections 25(1-B) (a)/26(1) of the Arms Act.

¶29

13. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶30

14. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside.

¶31

15. This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

¶32

16. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶33

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶34

Jay/-

Lankesh Kumar Singh Alias Lankesh Kr Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lankesh Kumar Singh Alias Lankesh Kr Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Gope And Ors. Vs Mohan Mahto And Ors.

Satyendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kalicharan Manjhi Alias Mahendra Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Singh Alias Don Alias Don Chacha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand