Conviction under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act for recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridge was upheld in revision despite hostile seizure witnesses, as police witnesses fully proved the seizure and no malice was shown.
None; revision dismissed and bail bond cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 72 of 2019
Ramesh Melgandi, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Samu Melgandi, Resident of Village – Balupani, P.O. & P.S.- Keraikela, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP ---
06 /19.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 18th September 2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2018 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with modification of sentence. The appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under section 26(1) of Arms Act and has reduced the sentence under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act from three years to one year, with no interference so far as the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- is concerned.
3. The learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner was also convicted by the learned trial court under section 26(1) of the Arms Act. The case was numbered as G.R. Case No. 200 of 2008 (T.R. Case No. 54 of 2018) arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2008. The judgement and sentences were passed on 30.06.2018 by learned S.D.J.M., Porahatat at Chaibasa with default stipulations.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments call for interference so far as the conviction for offence punishable under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is concerned, inasmuch as, the seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W. 8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution and the sergeant major
who was examined as P.W. 11, has also not supported the case of the prosecution fully during his cross-examination. The learned counsel has submitted that though there are five persons who have supported the recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner, but they are all police personnel and under such circumstances, the seizure witnesses having not fully supported the case of the prosecution, the impugned judgments are fit to be set-aside to the extent they relate to conviction of the petitioner under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts after meticulous scrutiny of the materials on record. So far as conviction under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is concerned , the recovery of the arms from the possession of the petitioner has been fully proved. He has submitted that merely because the witnesses are police personnel, the same by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned judgments.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellate Court has already modified the sentence and reduced it to a period of one year from three years.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the prosecution case was based on the written report of the informant - the then officer-in-charge of the police station Toklo stating that he along with other police officials constituted a patrolling party to apprehend the accused in various cases; on 04.07.2008 at about 13 hours during patrolling duty they reached Baipai river at Jharjhara area where they found two persons coming on black colour motorcycle and seeing the police party they tried to flee away, but they were ultimately apprehended. Upon being apprehended, they disclosed their names as Ramesh Melgandi (petitioner) and Dabu Ram Laguri. On search from the body of the petitioner, .315 bore live cartridge along with pistol was recovered and no license was produced regarding possession of the arms. Therefore, the arms were seized and they were arrested. They disclosed that they were working for an extremist organization and they had joined PLFI. They also disclosed
2
about arms being concealed and kept in the house of one Gurucharan Soy. On identification, the house was raided and huge number of arms and ammunitions were recovered from such place. Another seizure list was also prepared in connection with the recovery from the house of Gurucharan Soy.
8. On the basis of recovery and the written report, Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2008 dated 05.07.2008 was instituted for offence under section 387 of Indian Penal code, under section 25(1-B)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act, section 17 of C.L.A. Act and also under section 13 of UAP Act. An Investigating officer was appointed who submitted charge-sheet no. 121 of 2008 dated 09.02.2008 under section 387 of Indian Penal Code, section 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act, under section 17 of C.L.A. Act and section 13 of UAP Act against the two accused persons i.e. the petitioner and Dabu Ram Laguri. The investigation continued against other accused persons. Cognizance was taken under section 387 of Indian Penal Code and under section 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. The charge was also framed under the said sections on 25.11.2008. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
9. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses and evidence was closed on 08.08.2017. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and at that point of time, the coaccused left appearing before the Court and consequently, on 24.08.2017 his bail was cancelled and his trial was separated. The statement of the petitioner only was recorded on 30.05.2018 under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
10. The petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. However, no witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner. The defence evidence was closed and the case was put for arguments and later, for pronouncement of judgment.
11. From the perusal of the materials on record, it appears that out of 11 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 to 7 were police officials, P.W. 8 and 9 were the seizure witnesses and P.W. 10 was the member of raiding party and the investigating officer of the case. P.W.
3
11 was the sergeant major and an expert. Altogether, there were nine exhibits and out of them exhibit- 6 and 6/1 were the signature on seizure list – I and II of P.W. 8 and Exhibit 7 and 7/1 were the signatures on seizure lists- I and II of P.W. 9. The sanction order of the district magistrate was also brought on record as Exhibit- 8. The confessional statement of the petitioner was also exhibited as Exhibit3. 12. It has been recorded in the judgment of the trial Court that P.W. 1 to 5 had given similar evidence and had fully supported the prosecution case. They had also submitted that both the arrested persons, on interrogation disclosed that they were members of banned organization and used to collect ransom from the businessmen and contractors by way of levy and they were depositing the same to the head of the organization to get commission. They also disclosed the names of other members of the organization. They disclosed that they were keeping the arms and ammunition in the house of Gurucharan Soy and raid was conducted and huge amount of arms was recovered from the house of Gurucharan Soy. They have further stated that immediately upon apprehension the accused disclosed their name and a .315 bore country made pistol along with one live cartridge was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the two seizure lists; one regarding the recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner and the other seizure list with regard to recovery of arms and ammunition from the house of Gurucharan Soy were marked as Exhibit- 2 and Exhibit- 2/1.
13. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of each of the aforesaid witnesses. P.W. 6 had produced the material evidences before the Court which were marked as material exhibits. The motorcycle recovered during search was not brought to the Court as it was not in the running condition. P.W. 7 has also fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 8 and 9 as seizure list witnesses, had identified their signature on the seizure list.
14. This Court has gone through the evidence of P.W. 8 and 9 since their evidence has been referred to by the learned counsel for the
4
petitioner and finds that these two witnesses have identified their signature on the seizure list but they have not supported the prosecution case, inasmuch as, P.W. 8 had stated that he did not know as to what was seized and he stated that he had not given any statement to the police. In his cross examination, P.W. 8 has stated that he signed on blank paper. P.W. 9 was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. This Court finds that all the aforesaid witnesses have been duly cross-examined from the side of the prosecution. P.W. 10 is the member of the raiding party as well as the investigating officer of the case. He has also fully supported the prosecution case and has been thoroughly cross-examined. P.W. 11 has produced the seized articles which included .315 bore loaded country made pistol and other seized articles recovered during the raid at both the places. However, so far as P.W. 11 is concerned, during his cross-examination he has stated that there was no seal or stamp on the report, but he denied the suggestion that the report was not correct. 15. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidences on record, recorded the following findings:
“15. …………………..
All the witnesses, who were members of the raiding party have stated in their respective testimonies that on 04.07.2008, when they were in petrol duty and while crossing Bydi river one motorcycle on which two people were riding tried to flee away, seeing the police party. Both of them were chased and caught by the police party and on search from the body of the accused Ramesh Melgandi, one country made loaded pistol inclusive one cartridge of .315 bore had been recovered from his possession. It has also come in evidence on the disclosure made by the accused persons that both of them were earlier members of banned organisation JLT but they had left that organisation and have joined new organisation namely People Liberation party. It has also come in evidence that both of them were trying to collect the decisions arrived in the meeting which was called by the Manki and Munda's regarding restricting the activities of the PLFI. On further analysis of the evidence it is evident that the recovered country made loaded pistol had not been sealed at the place of occurrence, in which regard the witnesses have stated that as because they were not having any sealing materials, therefore, the recovered materials had not been sealed. The Sergeant Major, who have examined the country made pistol recovered from the possession of the accused Ramesh Melgandi has found to be effective. It has also come in evidence that on seeing police party the accused tried to flee away.
Therefore, considering all the above analysis, the accused Ramesh Melganid is held guilty and accordingly convicted for committing offence under S. 25(1B)(a) and also under S. 26 of the Arms Act.
…………………………..”
5
16. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner for offence under section 387 of Indian Penal Code vide paragraph 14 of its judgment.
17. The learned appellate court has considered the arguments of the petitioner in connection with seizure witnesses vide paragraph 8 and hostility of seizure witness vide paragraphs 9 and 10 and rejected the arguments of the petitioner in the following manner: -
“8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the seizure list witnesses has not been supported the factum of seizure which can’t be sustained, because the informant (PW-1) and other witnesses although being police personnel have consistently proved the factum of seizure of arm and ammunition in presence of independent witnesses PW- 8 Mochi Ram Gagrai @ Muchiram Gagrai and PW- 9 Lal Singh Soy. The seizure list witness Mochi Ram Gagrai @ Muchiram Gagrai (PW-8) has denied the factum of articles seized by police but he has proved his signature on the seizure lists. PW- 9 Lal Singh Soy is another witness of seizure list has also proved his signature on the seizure lists and declared hostile by the prosecution.
The evidence of witnesses appears convincing, as such recovery of articles can’t be disbelieved. Similarly, it is well proved that seized arm and ammunition were produced before Court concern, Magistrate who were properly sealed, there appears no chance of transplanting another weapons other than the articles seized. There is also no-force that PW-11 Sergeant Major Anjani Kumar has no expertise to examine the armed and ammunition and his report is not believable. The method adopted by PW- 9 in examination of the seized arms and ammunition appears to be proper.
In this view of the matter, I don’t find any legal force in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for appellant.
9. So far hostility of seizure list witness is concerned
The main argument of learned counsel for appellant is that seizure list witnesses have been declared hostile, hence alleged search and seizure is illegal and can’t be acted upon.
In Raj Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of Bihar, 2012 (2) East Cr. C. 280 (Pat), it has been held that – Once seizure list is exhibited and signature over it, is not denied by the seizure list witness, no doubt can be cast on seizure list which is consequence of seizure.
In the case of Mahadeo Vrs. State, 1989 Cr.LJ 475, it has been held that “conviction on the basis of evidence of police officials regarding recovery of unlicensed arm and ammunition from the possession of the accused will not be illegal for want of corroboration. There can be no presumption that police personnels are not reliable witnesses.”
10. On the other hand the defence plea is simply denial from occurrence and false implication. The prosecution witnesses are suggested by defence that the police personnel under conspiracy has falsely implicated him in the present case is also not legally sustainable in as much as no animus for false implication has been brought on record by the accused.”
6
18. The learned appellate Court has also recorded the finding at paragraphs 12 to 14 as under:
“12. So far possession of firearm by the appellant Ramesh Melgandi is concerned, admittedly it is a country made pistol of .315 bore, live cartridge of .315 bore and after examination found in workable condition. PW-11 Sergeant major Anjani Kumar, who has examined the country made pistol .315 bore as well as cartridge of .315 bore seized in this case has specifically deposed that the country made pistol and cartridge of .315 bore.
13. From discussion of aforesaid provisions of Arms Act & Rules, it is crystal clear that the country made Pistol and cartridge seized from the possession of accused/appellant in this case falls under the category of punishable u/s 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act.
14. From the evidence of witnesses, there remains no doubt the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled against the accused/appellant. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence u/s 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act suffers from no illegality or infirmity.”
19. The learned appellate Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 26(1) and 35 of the Arms Act and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under the aforesaid sections.
20. After going through the impugned judgments and also the materials on record, this Court finds that both the learned Courts have scrutinized the materials and have recorded concurrent finding with regard to recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioner.
21. So far as the evidence of seizure list witnesses are concerned, that has also been considered. Though seizure list witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution case and P.W. 9 was also declared hostile, but at the same time, they have not denied their signature on the seizure list which was duly exhibited and marked. No material has been brought on record from the side of the defence showing malice of the police personnel against the petitioner. All other witnesses to the seizure have fully supported the prosecution case and have been duly cross-examined. All the relevant aspects with regards to seizure and the seizure witnesses have been considered by the appellate court, interalia, in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the appellate Court judgement as quoted above and the arguments of the petitioner has been rejected by a well-reasoned judgement.
22. This court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgements passed by the learned courts so far as
7
conviction of the petitioner under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is concerned. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned appellate Court’s judgement confirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. So far as the sentence is concerned, the same has been substantially reduced by the appellate court.
23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this criminal revision application is accordingly dismissed.
24. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
26. Let a copy of this order be immediately communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conviction under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act could stand when the independent seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of BiharRelied on
Raj Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of Bihar, 2012 (2) East Cr. C. 280 (Pat)
Mahadeo v. StateRelied on
Mahadeo Vrs. State, 1989 Cr.LJ 475
6 provisions across 5 enactments
Ramesh Melgandi
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
