State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, PO, PS and District Jamtara … v. 1.Chotu Pujhar, s/o late Manilal Pujhar, r/o Chandradhipa Tola
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 -------- State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, PO, PS and District Jamtara ….. Appellant . Versus 1.Chotu Pujhar, s/o late Manilal Pujhar, r/o Chandradhipa Tola (Pahari Tola), PS Mihijam, District Jamtara 2.Prakash Napit, s/o Ugal Napit, r/o village Sultanpur, PS Madhupur, District …... Respondents Deoghar
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ---------- For the Appellant-State For the Respondents ------- : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP : -------
Decision
O R D E R 17th May 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J. I.A. No. 6631 of 2016 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 101 days in preferring the present acquittal appeal. 2. Having regard to the statements made in this interlocutory application and on being satisfied of the cause shown by the State of Jharkhand, I.A. No. 6631 of 2016 is allowed. Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 3. This application has been filed by the State of Jharkhand to challenge the order dated 29th February 2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 2011. 4. By this judgment of acquittal, Chotu Pujhar and Prakash Napit have been acquitted of the criminal charges under sections 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act and sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 5. The trial Judge in his order dated 29th February 2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 2011 has held as under: “11. In the light of discussion made above, I find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the story of recovery of articles as claimed from the possession of the accused persons. So, far question of 2 Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 identity is concerned, it is interesting to note that none of the witnesses have identified any of the accused persons in the dock, P.W.02 and PW03 identified the accused persons, but they can not recall their names. Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Basant Kahar @ Gariban - Versus- State of Bihar reported in 2007(3) Crime H.C. Page 408 page pleased to hold that" Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 395-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section. 317-Prosecution of appellant along with three others for committing dacoity in house of informant and looting his household articles-Trial Court while convicting appellant, acquitted other three accused persons-Appeal against conviction-Identification of accused done in a most perfunctory manner- Informant PWI though identified all 4 accused at TI Parade but in Court on day when appellant was represented under Section 317 Cr.PC said witness failed to identify three of those suspects and categorically stated that they had not participated in dacoity-Appellant accused when was represented under Section 317 Cr.PC, PW1 stated that he would be able to identify accused if heremained present in Court-Trial Court presumably took this as proper identification notwithstanding facts that witness had been declared hostile as he failed to identify three accused persons standing in dock-Identification of an accused in absentia by merely stating that he would identify when he sees the person was no identification in eye of law-Procedure adopted by Trial Court in holding appellant guilty merely on ground of question put to PW I by Court not appeared to be legal and permissible–In no circumstances it could be said that identification of accused had been valid or legal- Apart from fallacious identification by PWI alone no other material to connect appellant with alleged dacoity –Appellant held entitled to benefit of doubt" 12. In the light of discussion made above, I find and hold that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge leveled against the accused persons and accused persons namely 1. Chhotu Pujhar and 2. Prakash Napit are acquitted from the charges u/s 25(1-b)a, 26/35, Arms Act and Sec. 3/4 Explosive Substance Act and they are acquitted from the charge leveled against them. Accused persons are on bail and they have been discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond.” 6. Jamtara PS Case no. 168 of 2005 was lodged against Chotu Pujhar, Mohan Kol, Chaitu Kol, Sudhir Yadav and Prakash Napit on an allegation that they had assembled for preparation of committing the dacoity and in course of search a pistol was recovered from the person of Chotu Pujhar and explosive substance has been recovered from the other accused persons in the village Pasoi. 7. From the records, it appears that trial of Chotu Pujhar and Prakash Napit was separated as the other three accused had gone absconding. 8. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of whom PW6 Sadanand Das and PW7 Goutam Nag are the independent witnesses. 3 Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 9. They are the witnesses who have been produced by the prosecution to prove seizure of pistol and other explosive substances. However, these witnesses have stated in the Court that their signature was obtained on blank papers. 10. The other witnesses who were produced to support the factum of recovery of pistol and explosive substances are the members of the raiding party whose evidence particularly the evidence of PW1 and PW2 have been found contradictory by the trial Judge. 11. This is not the law that the testimony of a police witness must be viewed with initial suspicion, but then, in a case where the independent witnesses did not support the factum of seizure only on the basis of the evidence of police witness conviction of the accused cannot be recorded. 12. Chotu Pujhar and Prakash Napit have been charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 13. Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act provides that if a person unlawfully and maliciously causes any explosion of a nature likely to endanger the life or to cause serious injury to property he shall be liable for committing the offence under section 3. Admittedly, the accused persons were caught by the police while allegedly making preparation for dacoity. Similarly, the offence under section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act which relates to an attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intention to endanger life or property is not made out. 14. On a bare glance at the prosecution evidence, we gather that none of the witnesses has tendered such evidence in the Court on the basis of which an inference can be drawn that the accused persons had intention to cause explosion. Moreover, the chemical examination report of the bomb like article/material seized from the accused persons does not conclusively establish that the same shall fall within the expression “explosive substance”. Mere possession of pistol by Chotu Pujhar is not sufficient to raise an inference to hold him guilty under sections 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act and sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 15. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances in the case, Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 is dismissed. 16. I.A. No. 6630 of 2016 stands disposed of. 4 Acquittal Appeal No. 37 of 2016 17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 17th May, 2023 Tanuj/ N.A.F.R (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)