Anchal Ram @ Anil Rathour v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 219 of 2011 Anchal Ram @ Anil Rathour … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
----- : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. --- 13/05.10.2023 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner Anchal Ram @ Anil Rathour has filed this revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2010, passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Choubey, learned Additional Sessions, Fast Track Court No.1, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2008, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions, Fast Track Court No.1, Palamau at Daltonganj, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2008, passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with G.R. No.338 of 2007 arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No.33 of 2007, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R. I. for two years alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- for the aforesaid offence, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant namely Dhanraj Sahu, alleging therein that on 16.03.2007, on the basis of confidential information the petitioner was apprehended in connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No.31 of 2007 registered under Sections 307, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. At the instance of the petitioner the firearm used in Bishrampur P.S. Case No.31 of 2007, a country made pistol along with loaded with fire cartridge case was recovered from under heap of straw in village – Laduka. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned -2- Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 5. The informant Dhanraj Sahu has been examined as P.W.8. He has stated that on 16.03.2007 raid was conducted in connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No.31 of 2007. The petitioner Anchal Ram @ Anil Rathour and co-accused Radheshyam Bishwakarma were accused in that case. The petitioner was arrested from Pandu Bazar. He confessed his guilt and on his confession the firearm used in Bishrampur P.S. Case No.31 of 2007 was recovered from village - Laduka. The seized firearm was kept in a heap of straw. This witness has proved the written confession of the petitioner which is Exhibit-2. He has further stated that the seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence, he has proved the seizure list, which is Exhibit-3. He has also proved that formal F.I.R., which is Exhibit-5. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when the raiding party reached at the place of the occurrence, several bystanders assembled there. He has given the description of boundary of the place from where firearm was recovered. 6. Permeshwar Rai P.W.3, Rameshwar Upadhyay P.W.4, Din Deyal Ram P.W.5, Krishna Kumar Singh P.W.6 and Hawaldar Arjun Singh P.W.7 all have stated that on 16.03.2007, they were members of raiding party, which has apprehended the petitioner from Pandu Bazar on his pointing out a country made pistol loaded with fire cartridge case was recovered in a heap of straw outside the village - Laduka. All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, there is nothing in there cross-examination to doubt there veracity. Amrendra Chouhan P.W.1 and Umesh Chouhan are the seizure witnesses, they have been declared hostile. Pawan Kumar Singh P.W.9, who is a formal witness has produced the seized firearm and fired cartridge case in the court, which has marked as material Exhibit-1 &2 respectively. Shiv Nandan Sao P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the report of ballistic expert, which is Exhibit-8. Mahendra Nath Singh P.W.11 has proved the sanction for the prosecution of the -3- petitioner under Arms Act, which is Exhibit-9. Anil Kumar Singh P.W.12 is the ballistic expert, who had examined the recovered firearm according to him the recovered firearm was in working condition. He has identified the signature on his report, which is Exhibit-8/1. 7. From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that the seizure list is Exhibit-3. From perusal of which it appears that a country made pistol loaded with fire cartridge case was recovered, which was hidden in a heap of straw kept in the field of Marchho Chouhan in village- Laduka. A copy of the seizure list was also given to the petitioner. 8. The prosecution has also proved the report of the sergeant major, which is Exhibit-8. From perusal of which it appears that the recovered country made pistol was in working condition. The prosecution has also proved the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under Arms Act issued by District Magistrate, Palamau which is Exhibit-9. 9. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that all the witnesses of the prosecution have unanimously stated that a country made pistol loaded with fire cartridge case was recovered on the pointing of the petitioner in a heap of straw in village -Laduka. The recovered pistol was found to be in working condition. The prosecution has also proved the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner is under Sections 25 (1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. 10. Accordingly, I come to the finding that that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has rightly held the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offennce. 11. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in Bishrampur P.S. Case No.31 of 2007. It was further submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It was finally submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2007 prior to the amendment of the -4- Arms Act when the quantum of sentence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act was enhanced. Before that the quantum of the sentence for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act was punishable with a minimum period of one year. 12. In view of the aforesaid provision of law the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court directing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for two years for offences under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is set aside. The petitioner is directed to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine. The petitioner shall further undergo S.I. for 15 days. The period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial is ordered to be set off. 13. The criminal revision application is partly allowed with modification of sentence.
Decision
14. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)