Deepak Kumar …... … v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 273 of 2016 ------- Deepak Kumar …... …. Petitioner The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party Versus CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- -------- For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P -------- 09/12.10.2023 Heard the parties. The petitioner Deepak Kumar has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 07.12.2015, passed by Sri Diwakar Pandey, learned A.J.C-IV, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 187/2011, whereby and wherein, learned A.J.C-IV, Ranchi partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by altering the finding and reducing the sentence passed by Sri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R Case No.2986/2003, arising out of Sadar P.S Case No.145/2003 by its Judgment dated 08.12.2011, whereby and wherein, learned A.J.C.M, Ranchi held the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-b)a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for three years alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the aforesaid sentences. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, but non-payment of fine, S.I of six months will be run one after another. Learned Appellate Court set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 (1-b)a of the Arms Act and held him guilty for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 26 of the Arms Act and reduced the sentences, directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment R.I for one year for each of the aforesaid offences alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo R.I for three months. 2 The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant, Randhir Kumar, Officer In-charge of Sadar Police Station, alleging therein that on 20.10.2003 at about 3:20 P.M, he was on patrolling duty alongwith the police party. On the basis of confidential information, he intercepted a motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-01A-9027 on Ranchi-Tatisilway Road near Murli Bridge. The petitioner alongwith co-accused was apprehended. On search, one country-made pistol, 5 S.L.R cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 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 recovery of the firearms from the possession of the petitioner. The informant Randhir Kumar has been examined as P.W.7. He has supported the allegation made out in the written report and stated that on 20.10.2003, he was on patrolling duty along-with the police party. At about 3:00 P.M he received a confidential information that criminals were coming from Tatisilway Side on a motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01A-9071. On the basis of this information, the aforesaid motorcycle was intercepted and two persons namely Deepak Kumar (petitioner) and co-accused Rohit Giri were apprehended. On search before the independent witnesses, one country-made pistol and 5 S.L.R cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Seizure list was prepared at the spot. He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the place of occurrence of this case comes within the jurisdiction of Sadar Police Station. He has further stated 3 that the seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence and seizure witnesses have signed on the seizure list at the place of occurrence itself. Sudama Prasad Singh P.W.4 and Feku Oraon P.W.5 were the members of the raiding party. Both have stated that on 20.10.2003, the petitioner was apprehended by them, while he was coming from Tatisilway Side on a motorcycle. Both have stated that on search, one country-made pistol, 5 S.L.R cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Sudama Prasad Singh P.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that the place of occurrence comes within the jurisdiction of Sadar Police Station. He has further stated that he had not apprehended the petitioner. Feku Oraon P.W.5 in his cross-examination has stated that there was no independent witnesses at the place of occurrence. He has further stated that nothing was recovered in his presence. Ashok Kumar Pathak P.W.3 is an expert witness who has examined the firearms. He has stated that the firearms were in working condition. He has proved his report which is Exhibit-2. Prabhunath Singh P.W.1 and Sri Ram Singh P.W.2 are the seizure witnesses who have identified their signatures on the seizure list which were marked as Exhibit-1 series. They have stated that nothing was recovered in their presence and had signed on blank papers at the instance of the informant. S.K.Sukla P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He was also member of the raiding party. He has stated that on 20.10.2003, the petitioner was apprehended while traveling on a motorcycle and on search, one country made pistol, 5 S.L.R cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from this petitioner. Search was made before the independent witnesses. The seizure list was 4 prepared at the spot. He has proved the seizure list which is Exhibit-1/2. At paragraph-15, he has stated that the seized firearms were not sealed in his presence. From perusal of the documentary evidence, i.e., the seizure list which is Exhibit-1/2, it transpires that on 20.10.2003 at about 3:20 P.M, one country made pistol, 5 S.L.R cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He was handed over the copy of the seizure list. The report of Sergeant Major, who had examined the seized firearms, is Exhibit-2, from which, it transpires that the seized firearms were in working condition. The sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under the Arms Act is Exhibit-5, from which, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Ranchi has accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner after going through the materials available on record and after the application of mind. From the facts and circumstances, it is evident that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other on the point that on 20.10.2003 at about 3:20 P.M, one country-made pistol, 5 S.L.R Cartridges and three 0.315 bore cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution has also been able to show that the seized firearms were in working condition. The sanction order for the prosecution of the petitioner has also been adduced in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has altered the findings and has reduced the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the factum of recovery from the petitioner. It was further submitted that petitioner has remained in custody for about five months and ten 5 days and as such, the sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court should further be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial. Section 386(b)(iii) of the Cr.P.C provides that the Appellate Court in appeal from a conviction “with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.” The aforesaid provision specifically empowers the Appellate Court to alter the findings and to alter the sentence by reducing it, but the Appellate Court has no power to enhance the same without showing cause to the appellant as to why the sentence should not be enhanced. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court by altering the judgment of conviction and reducing the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court, holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) (a) and Section 26 of the Arms Act and the sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court does not require any interference. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. B.S/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)