Shravan Singh …... … v. CORAM : HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 116 of 2016 ------- Shravan Singh …... …. Petitioner The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party Versus -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate : A.P.P -------- 07/ Dated 12.09.2023 Heard the parties. The petitioner Shravan Singh has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 20.01.2016, passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Cr. Appeal Nos. 14/2015 and 18/2015, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2015, passed by Sri Vikram Anand, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Simdega in Kolebira P.S. Case No. 88/2012, corresponding to G.R Case No. 522/2012, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-B)a & 26/35 of the Arms Act and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for two and half years for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for three months. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of two years for the offence under Sections 26/35 of the Arms Act alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for three months. The period already undergone by the petitioner during trial was ordered to be set off. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement of the informant Sriniwash Kumar, alleging therein that on 11.12.2012 at about 4:45 P.M, he along-with police party had gone to conduct a raid for apprehending the extremists belonging to PLFI Organization. While returning, when they reached near Patthalpunji, Birnibera, they intercepted nine persons, traveling on three motorcycles. Three persons were apprehended and on search, a loaded country- made pistol and mobile phone were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Live cartridges were recovered from the other accused persons. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. -2- Sriniwas Kumar the informant has been examined as P.W.3. He has supported the allegation as made out in his written report, wherein, he has stated that on 11.12.2012, while he was returning from raid alongwith the police party, he intercepted nine persons, traveling on motorcycles at Birnibera Road, out of which, six persons managed to escape and three persons, including the petitioner were apprehended. A loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and live cartridges were recovered from the possession of co-accused Gurucharan Singh. He has proved the seizure list which is Exhibit-2/1. He has proved his fardbeyan which is Exhibit-3. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the seized firearms were found at the place of occurrence. Manik Nath Pandey P.W.4, Anil Kumar P.W.5, Bhinsaria Uraon P.W.6, Naveen Kumar P.W.7, Bhaiya Sanjay Kumar Nath Shah P.W.8 and Mrityunjay Sharma P.W.9, all have supported the prosecution case and stated that on the date and time of the occurrence, they were the members of raiding party and conducted a raid. They intercepted nine persons traveling on three motorcycles. Six persons managed to escape and the petitioner and two other accused persons were apprehended. On search, a loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is nothing in their cross-examinations to doubt their veracity. Anil Kumar Singh P.W.1 is the Sergeant Major, who had examined the recovered firearms and has stated that a loaded country-made pistol and live cartridges were in working condition. He has proved his report, which is Exhibit- 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had received the firearms in sealed condition. From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears from the seizure list which is Exhibit-2/1 that a loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Copy of the seizure list was also handed over to him. From perusal of the report of Ballistic Expert, which is Exhibit-1, it appears that the seized firearms were in working condition. The prosecution has also proved the sanction order (Exhibit-4) for the prosecution of the petitioner. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has been able to prove that the loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 11.12.2012. The prosecution has also proved the seizure list and the report of Ballistic Expert, showing that the -3- seized firearms were in working condition and the sanction order for the prosecution of the petitioner under the Arms Act. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a & 26/35 of the Arms Act. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly held him guilty for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-B) a & 26/35 of the Arms Act is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence had taken place more than ten years ago. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been convicted in any other case and for that matter, he is not an accused in any other case. It was further submitted that prior to the amendment of the Penal Provision in Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act in the year 2019, the minimum sentenced prescribed was one year, which may extend to three years. It was finally submitted that the sentence of R.I for a period of two and half years for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act may be reduced to S.I for a period of one and half years. Considering the aforesaid fact, the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, directing the petitioner to undergo R.I for two and half years for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is reduced to S.I for a period of one and half years along-with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo S.I for three months. The sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, directing the petitioner to undergo R.I for a period of two years for the offence under Sections 26/35 of the Arms Act is reduced to S.I for a period of one and half years along-with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo S.I for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial and during the pendency of this revision application is ordered to be set off. This revision application is partly allowed with modification of sentence.
Decision
Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)