Laxman Sahu The State of Jharkhand v. … Opposite Party --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1489 of 2015 Laxman Sahu The State of Jharkhand --------- ... … Petitioner Versus ... … Opposite Party --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Petitioner For the State 06/12.07.2023
Legal Reasoning
--------- : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahta, Advocate : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, A.P.P. --------- This petitioner Laxman Sahu has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 21.09.2015, passed by Sri Pravas Kumar Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2015, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015, passed by Sri Shekhar Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No.439/2010, arising out of Senha P.S. Case No.73/2010, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-b) a / 35 of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for one month for the aforesaid offence. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement of the informant Puran Chandra Deogam, Officer In-charge of Senha Police Station alleging therein that on 01.10.2010 at about 8:40 AM, he intercepted a motorcycle near Sithio Bridge and apprehended the petitioner and co-convict Nagendra Kr. Sahu. On search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from possession of Nagendra Kr. Sahu, nothing was recovered from possession of the petitioner. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that nothing was recovered from possession of the petitioner and he had no knowledge that co-accused was carrying firearms -2- and prosecution has to prove that the petitioner had knowledge about the possession of firearm by the co-accused, then only provision under Section 35 of the Arms Act will be applicable. It was further submitted that petitioner has remained in custody for about seven months and he has got no criminal antecedent. Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been consistent in their statement that the petitioner was travelling on the same motorcycle in which co-convict was travelling and firearm was recovered from possession of co-convict. Accordingly, it was prayed that this application be dismissed. From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that Puran Chandra Dewgam has been examined as P.W.5. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, he intercepted a motorcycle near Sithio bridge. Three persons were travelling on the said motorcycle, one person managed to escape while Nagendra Kr. Sahu and this petitioner Laxman Sahu were apprehended. On search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Nagendra Kr. Sahu. He has further stated the nothing was recovered from possession of this petitioner. He has proved the seizure list, which is Exhibit-4. He has stated that the seized firearm was sealed and labeled at the place of occurrence. He has proved the endorsement on the label, which has been marked as Exhibit-6. Dhurandhar Kumar Singh P.W.1, Sanjay Minj P.W.3 and Prasant Kumar P.W.4 were members of the police party, which had apprehended the accused persons. They have corroborated the statement of Puran Chandra Dewgam P.W.5 that on 01.10.2010 petitioner was apprehended alongwith co-convict Nagendra Kr. Sahu near Sithio bridge from whose possession a loaded country made pistol was recovered. There is nothing in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity. From the perusal of the seizure list, which is Exhibit-4, it is apparent that a loaded country made pistol was recovered from possession of co-convict Nagendra Kr. Sahu on 01.10.2010. Seizure list was prepared at about 8:50 am, the copy of the seizure list was handed over to the co- convict and this petitioner. Sameer Kumar P.W.2 is the ballistic expert, who has examined the -3- seized firearm. According to him the seized firearms were in working condition. He has proved his report, which is Exhibit-1. From the perusal of which it transpires that the seized firearms were in working condition. The prosecution has also proved the sanction order for the prosecution of the petitioner under Arms Act issued by District Magistrate, Latehar. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that prosecution has been able to show that the petitioner was apprehended alongwith co-convict Nagendra Kr. Sahu from whose possession a loaded country made pistol was recovered. They were travelling on the same motorcycle, so it cannot be said that the petitioner was oblivious of the fact that co-convict Nagendra Kr. Sahu was carrying fire arms. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to a concurrent finding regarding guilt of the petitioner for offences under Sections 25(1-b)a/35 of the Arms Act. It is admitted case of the prosecution that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that petitioner has been convicted in any other case or for that matter he is an accused in any other case. Considering the aforesaid facts, the judgment of conviction holding the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 25(1-b)a/35 of the Arms Act is affirmed. The order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court directing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 1 year alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial and during the pendency this criminal revision application. The petitioner shall pay the fine amount as directed by the learned trial court. Accordingly, this revision application is party allowed with modification of sentence.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)