Dismissed¶15

Dutiya Singh Alias Bhaula v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Jun 2024Cr.Rev./207/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court criminal revision dismissed; Arms Act conviction under Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35 affirmed despite non-sealing of country made pistol and cartridges at place of occurrence (sealed at police station per P.W. 2); reliance on Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh; sanction by Deputy Commissioner challenged but no separate finding; no sentence leniency due to ten criminal antecedents of Manraj Singh; arises from Kolebira P.S. Case No.23/18, District Simdega, motorcycle seizure of pistol and live cartridges.

What did the court decide?

None. The judgment of conviction and sentence (convictions under Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35 of the Arms Act, sentences running concurrently with maximum three years R.I., after acquittal under Section 414 IPC) is affirmed, and both criminal revisions stand dismissed. ¶15

Dutiya Singh Alias Bhaula Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the fact that the seized arms were not sealed at the place of occurrence (being sealed only at the police station) is a sufficient ground to set aside the conviction under the Arms Act. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

Non-sealing of the arms at the place of occurrence cannot be the sole ground for discarding the entire prosecution case, which is otherwise proved by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence; the Court is not persuaded by that argument of the petitioners.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Following and endorsing the reasoning in Bilal Ahmad Kaloo Versus State of Andhra Pradesh (quoted at length), mere academic possibility of tampering where no tampering is alleged does not discredit the recovery, the identity of the weapons standing established through the seizure particulars; the prosecution evidence suffers from neither contradiction nor exaggeration as to the factum of search and seizure.

¶12

Key takeaways

Concurring with the findings of the learned trial Court and the Court of appeal, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.ratio¶12
On sentence, the appellants deserve no leniency, the learned Trial Court having noted that appellant Manraj Singh had criminal antecedents of being involved in ten criminal cases and all three having travelled armed on a motorcycle.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) — Common order in Cr. Revision Nos. 449 and 207 of 2020 dismissing both revisions and affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence in G.R. No.316 of 2018, whereby the petitioners (Manraj Singh, Vikas Sahu and Dutia Singh @ Bhaula) stood convicted under Sections 25(1-B)a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act with concurrent sentences (maximum three years R.I.), following their acquittal under Section 414 IPC in Kolebira P.S. Case No.23/18 (seizure of country made pistols and live cartridges from three persons on a motorcycle during routine vehicle checking). Held: (i) non-sealing of the arms at the place of occurrence — they were sealed only at the police station, as deposed by P.W. 2 — is not a sole ground for discarding the entire prosecution case otherwise proved by cogent evidence, the Court relying on and quoting Bilal Ahmad Kaloo Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (7) SCC 431; (ii) prosecution evidence suffered from no contradiction or exaggeration as to the factum of search and seizure, and the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court were concurred with and the conviction affirmed; (iii) no leniency on sentence, one appellant (Manraj Singh) having antecedents of involvement in ten criminal cases. Counsel-cited precedents Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Versus State of Punjab (1955 Supp. (3) SCC 217 as printed), Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh & Others (AIR 2016 SC 5160) and State of Rajasthan Versus Kishore (1996 SCC (Cri ) 646) were referred to in submissions; the sanction point (production of seized articles before the Deputy Commissioner) was urged but no separate finding was recorded on it.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 449 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

Manraj Singh 2. Vikas Sahu .... .... …. Petitioners

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party

¶5

With Cr. Revision No. 207 of 2020 Dutia Singh @ Bhaula .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate (In Cr. Revision No.449 of 2020) Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate (In Cr. Revision No.207 of 2020) For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. (In Cr. Revision No.449 of 2020) Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. (In Cr. Revision No.207 of 2020)

¶8

------

¶9

Order No.12 Dated : 27.06.2024

¶10

1. Both these criminal revision petitions arise out of common judgment and therefore, will be heard together and will be disposed of by the common order.

¶11

2. This criminal revision petitions have been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in G.R. No.316 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35 of Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo various term of imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently, the maximum sentence awarded is three years R.I.

¶12

3. Kolebira P.S. Case No.23/18 was registered under Sections 414 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act on 11.06.2018 against the appellants on the basis of the self-statement of Officer-in-Charge of the Kolebira Police Station, District Simdega. As per FIR, during the course of routine vehicle checking, these three appellants were apprehended, who were going on a motorcycle and four cartridges were seized from Vikash Sahu, one country made pistol and three live cartridges from Manraj Singh and from third accused- Dutia Singh @ Bhaula, one loaded country made pistol and two live cartridges were seized.

¶13

4. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet and after cognizance, the accused persons were put on trial under the provisions of Arms Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and the relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit. The country 1

¶15

made pistol and cartridges were all produced and they have also been marked as material exhibits. Defence has examined two witnesses in their support. Learned trial court acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Section 414 of IPC and have convicted them under the provisions of Arms Act as stated above.

¶16

6. Learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding and the criminal appeal was dismissed.

¶17

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the Manraj Singh and Vikas Sahu in Cr. Revision No.449 of 2020 that arms were not sealed at the place of occurrence which will be evident from the testimony of P.W. 2 who has deposed at para 6 that arms were sealed in the police station and not at the place of occurrence. It is submitted in this regard that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside on this very ground in view of ratio laid downy by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Versus State of Punjab , 1955 Supp. (3) SCC 217 wherein it was held that non-sealing of the revolver is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out.

¶18

8. On the point of sanction, it is submitted that the sanction has been accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, but it has not been proved as to whether at the time of granting sanction, the seized articles were produced before the Deputy Commissioner. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the petitioners in Cr. Revision No.449 of 2020 have undergone sentence for more than seven months and in Cr. Revision No.207 of 2020 has undergone 23 months and there is no past conviction against them.

¶19

9. Learned A.P.P. defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that it is settled principle of law that mere irregularity in investigation will not prove fatal to the prosecution in any case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh & Others , AIR 2016 SC 5160, State of Rajasthan Versus Kishore , 1996 SCC (Cri ) 646.

¶20

10. It is further argued that that on the point of sanction there is no mandatory requirement that the sanction should be proved at the first place in case of recovery of country made revolver, sanction is not required for prosecution as that is in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act and not in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act. The sanction per se is required in a case having a proper fire arm or ammunition without valid license. It is a case where a country made revolver has been seized for which Section 5 of the Arms Act will apply and not Section 3 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that as per the impugned judgment, petitioner-Manraj Singh has criminal antecedents to be involved in ten cases.

¶21

11. This Court is not persuaded by the argument on behalf of the appellant 2

¶22

that only because it has come in evidence that arms was not sealed at the place of occurrence, can be the sole ground for discarding the entire prosecution case which is otherwise prove by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. It has been held in Bilal Ahmad Kaloo Versus State of Andhra Pradesh , 1997 (7) SCC 431 which involved recovery of one revolver and two cartridges from the appellant and the conviction was challenged on the ground that articles were not sealed after seizure and were left at police station for number of days before it was sent for forensic laboratory. It was held

¶23

“We are not impressed by the said contention and we may point out that appellant made no allegation at any stage of the case that the recovery and the cartridges were tampered with by the police. Not even a suggestion was made to any witness in that direction. According to the counsel, since those articles were sealed there was possibilities of their being tempered with. Such an academic possibility need not be countenanced by us in this case because even the accused has no case that they were tempered with. That apart, the particular of the weapons were given in the seizure memo and the same tallied with the weapons on examination by the Ballistic expert. There is no challenge to the seizure memo admittedly prepared at the time of recovery of arms and ammunitions. The identity of the weapons thus stands, established beyond any reasonable doubt.”

¶24

12. I do not find that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradiction or exaggeration to disbelieve the factum of search and seizure and differ with the findings of the learned trial Court and the Court of appeal. Judgment of conviction is affirmed.

¶25

13. On the point of sentence, it has come in evidence that all the three were travelling on a motorcycle variously armed with country made revolver and cartridges. Learned Trial Court has also noted that one of the appellant Manraj Singh had criminal antecedents of being involved in ten criminal cases. In this view of matter appellants deserves no leniency on the point of sentence.

¶26

14. In the result the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

¶27

Criminal Revisions stand dismissed.

¶28

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶29

Anit

¶30

Dutiya Singh Alias Bhaula v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dutiya Singh Alias Bhaula 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

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhad

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashif Ansari Alias Bhoma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hari Ram Gope Vs State of Jharkhand