Shankar Mehta v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 May 2024Cr.A(SJ)/449/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 402 IPC — assembly for dacoity — preparation to commit dacoity — no evidence of assembly; Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act — country-made pistol .315 bore — recovery from possession — ballistic expert report not exhibited — Sgt. Major not examined — working condition of firearm not proved — seizure list Ext.-2 — sanction order Ext.-4 — Ichak P.S. Case No. 39/2008 — G.R. Case No. 677/2008 — S.T. No. 277/2008 — Hazaribagh — Additional Sessions Judge-XII — conviction and sentence set aside — appeals allowed — Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 430 — benefit of doubt — Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 411 & 449 of 2017.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court set aside; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶¶37

Shankar Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court set aside; pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellants had assembled at the place of their apprehension and were making preparations for committing dacoity so as to constitute an offence under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Despite the recovery of a loaded .315 bore country-made pistol from Ashok Prasad Mehta (seizure list Ext.-2), there is no evidence on the record that the appellants had assembled at the place from which they were arrested or were making preparations for committing dacoity; the charge under Section 402 IPC therefore fails.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of the ballistic expert's report establishing that the seized firearm was in working condition (and with the Sgt. Major not examined), the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act cannot be said to have been proved.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The learned trial Court wrongly held the appellants guilty under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeals (SJ) Nos. 411 and 449 of 2017 (common judgment) — conviction under Section 402 IPC and Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh (S.T. No. 277 of 2008, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008) set aside. Held: (i) although a loaded .315 bore country-made pistol was recovered from appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta (Ext.-2) and a knife from appellant Shankar Mehta, there was no evidence that the appellants had assembled at the spot or were making preparations to commit dacoity, the defence having relied on Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCC 430; (ii) the prosecution failed to prove the Arms Act charge because the Sgt. Major who examined the recovered firearm was not examined and the ballistic expert's report on its working condition was not exhibited — a fact not disputed by the State. Convictions and sentences (including fines of Rs.5000/- each and Rs.2000/-) quashed by setting aside; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017 With

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 449 of 2017

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2017 (sentence passed on 13.02.2017) passed by Sri Rajesh Narayan Singh learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 277 of 2008, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008, Corresponding to G. R. Case No. 677 of 2008 ]

¶5

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017

¶6

Mithilesh Prasad Mehta @ Mithilesh Kumar Mehta @ Mithlesh Mehta

¶7

Ashok Prasad Mehta … Appellants -VersusThe State Jharkhand … Respondent

¶8

With

¶9

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 449 of 2017

¶10

Shankar Mehta … Appellant -VersusThe State Jharkhand … Respondent

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶13

For the Appellant(s): M/s. Pradeep Kumar Prasad Advocate For the State : M/s. Nehala Sharmin Spl.P.P. : M/s. P. K. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶14

---------

¶15

11/Dated 01.05.2024

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Prasad learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Ms. Nehala Sharmin learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The aforesaid appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2017 (sentence passed on 13.02.2017) passed by Sri Rajesh Sharan Singh learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh

¶17

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017 With

¶18

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 449 of 2017

¶19

¶20

in S.T. No. 277 of 2008, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008, Corresponding to G. R. Case No. 677 of 2008, holding the appellants guilty of offences under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act, thereby sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/each for the offence under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta [in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017] was further sentenced to undergo R.I for three years alongwith a fine of rupees 2000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 2 months for the offence under section 25(1B)a of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant, Sanjay Kumar police officer posted at Ichak Police Station, alleging therein that on 29.02.2008 at about 02:00 P.M., he received confidential information that dacoits have assembled near Bonga Petrol Pump, on the basis of confidential information police raided and arrested several persons including the appellants. It further appears that mobile phone alongwith a loaded country made pistol of of .315 bore were recovered from the possession of the appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta [in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017].

¶21

5. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that no case under section 402 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants as there is nothing on the record that the appellants had assembled there and were making preparations for committing dacoity.

¶22

Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Chaturi Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1979) 3 SCC 430 , in which the Honorable Apex Court has held that:-. “The mere fact that the appellants had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparations to accomplish that object. “ It was further held that possibility that the appellants may have

¶23

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017 With

¶24

¶25

collected for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing other offence cannot be safely eliminated ”.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of materials available on the record, the learned trial court held them guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

¶27

Sanjay Kumar has been examined as P.W.3. He has supported the prosecution case as made out in the written report and has stated that on 29.02.2008, on the basis of confidential information, that some persons had assembled near Bonga Petrol pump and were planning to commit dacoity, the police party reached there and apprehended these appellants along with other accused persons. On search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta.

¶28

He has been cross examined at length. In his cross-examination he has admitted that no evidence could be collected to show that the appeallants had assembled at the place and were making preparations to commit dacoity.

¶29

Sunil Kumar P.W.1, Arun Kumar Pandey P.W.2, Raghunandan Paswan P.W.4, Sujit Kumar P.W.5. All were the members of the raiding party. They have all supported the prosecution case and has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, the appellants were apprehended while they were making preparations for committing dacoity. They have also stated that a loaded country made pistol of.315. bore was recovered from the possession of appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta while a knife was recovered from the possession of appellant Shankar Mehta. The prosecution has formally proved the sanction order which has been marked as Ext.- 4 with objection.

¶30

It further appears that the prosecution has not examined the sgt. Major, who has examined the recovered firearm to prove whether it was in working condition or not nor his report has been adduced in evidence. Learned Special P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not

¶31

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 411 of 2017 With

¶32

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 449 of 2017

¶33

¶34

dispute the fact that the report of the ballistic expert has not been adduced in evidence. She has also stated that the Sgt. major has not been examined. Mr. P. K. Mishra, learned A.P.P. in [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 449 of 2017] has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a fact that all the three appellants were apprehended by Ichak police and on the date and time of occurrence as alleged. It further appears that .315 bore of loaded country made pistol was also recovered from the possession of appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta.

¶35

From the perusal of the seizure list which is Ext.-2, it appears that a loaded country made pistol of .315 bore was recovered from the possession of appellant Ashok Prasad Mehta. However, there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellants had assembled at the place from where they were arrested and were making preparations for committing dacoity. Furthermore, in the absence of the report of ballistic expert whether the seized firearm was in working condition or not, no case can be said to be proved by the prosecution under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act.

¶36

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellants guilty for the offence under section 402 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act.

¶37

Both these appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of.

¶38

(Ambuj Nath J.)

¶39

Saurabh Uploaded

Shankar Mehta v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Mehta 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

Binod Choudhary Binod Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Bishnu Mukhi Alias Jhapa Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotan Turi Alias Badal Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Ramani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishekh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Singh Alias Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Binod Choudhary  Binod Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Bishnu Mukhi Alias Jhapa Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotan Turi Alias Badal Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Ramani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishekh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Singh Alias Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Choudhary Binod Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand