Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 2025:CGHC:21330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.717 of 2007 1 - Manoj Jhariya @ Ajay Aged About 18 Years S/o Maheshwar Jhariya, R/o Village Kudumkela-Dumarpali, Thana Gharghora, Distt.- Raigarh,c.G. versus Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Gharghora, Tahsil Gharghora, District Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 08/05/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2007 passed by the learned 4th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raigarh (C.G.) in Session Trial No.3/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 25 (1) (B) of the Arms Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and 2 RI for 3 years, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.08.2006 after receiving instructions from higher official Hem Prakash Nayak Sub Inspector, Crime Branch, Raigarh with his associates constable Ramesh Sharma, Rath Lal Patel and Jaisingh had gone to catch the accused/appellant, the declared criminal, who had taken shelter in the house of co-accused Nandlal at Nakadih Mohalla in Village Kudumkela, but having seen the police, the appellant fired Desi Katta on Hem Prakash Nayak with intention to kill him and ran away from the place of occurrence. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The seizure of incriminating articles has not been duly proved by the prosecution. There are many discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the story developed by the prosecution, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, 3 She submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of IPC, he remained in jail for about 1 year and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act against the present appellant and framed charges against the co-accused Nand Lal for the offence under Section 212 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 307 of IPC and convicted him under Sections 25 (1) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act, whereas the co-accused Nand Lal has been acquitted of the offence under Section 212 of IPC. 7. PW-1 Hemprakash Nayak, PW-2 Ramesh Sharma, PW-3 N. R. 4 Patel, PW-4 Samme Singh, PW-5 Jai Singh, PW-6 Ajay Pratap Singh, PW-7 Lokesh Agrawal, PW-8 Lokpal Paikra, PW-9 Jagat Ram, PW-10 Lallu Singh, PW-11 Chhatra Kumar, PW-12 Wahid Mohammad, PW-13 Rathlal Patel, PW-14 N. L. Rathiya, PW-15 Laxman Patel, PW-16 H. P. Singh, PW-17 Jaipal Patnayak, PW- 18 G. S. Dubey and PW-19 Dr. S. N. Kesari have all stated against the appellant. The learned Trial Court rightly found that pistol and kaartoos was seized from the possession of the appellant and he was convicted under Sections 25 (1) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act, however he was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 8. Section 27 of the Arms Act provides as under:- “27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, [shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine].” 9. It is clear from the statement of the witnesses that the accused himself got injured and he was treated by Dr. S. N. Kesari (PW- 19) vide Ex-P/22, but the prosecution has failed to prove this fact 5 that the appellant used arms in contravention of the provisions of Sections 5 & 7 of the Arms Act and when the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant for the same act under Section 307 of IPC, then the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also not made out against the appellant. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the provisions of Section 27 of the Arms Act properly and wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as such the appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, however the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 25 (1) (B) of the Arms Act. Therefore, his conviction under Section 25 (1) (B) of the Arms Act is affirmed. 10. As regards sentence, it is clear that the he incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, appellant is presently aged about 43 years of age, he remained in jail for about 1 year and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. The appeal is partly allowed. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 13. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.1 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be 6 effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala