1. Ramlal Singh 2. Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Sahu @ Sanju Sahu The State v. For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 554 of 2016 1. Ramlal Singh 2. Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Sahu @ Sanju Sahu The State of Jharkhand Versus --- --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. --- Petitioners --- Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
--- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH --- Reserved on: 11.05.2023 Pronounced on: 24.06.2023 Ambuj Nath, J: Petitioners-Ramlal Singh and Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Sahu have filed --- this application against the judgment dated 21.08.2015 passed by Mr. Ram Babu Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2014, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2014 passed by Shri Vikram Anand, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega in G.R. No. 133/2011 arising out of Kolebira P.S Case No. 22/2011, holding the petitioners guilty of the offence under section 25(1-B) a/26(1)/35 of Arms Act and section 17 of C.L.A Act and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I for 2 and ‰ years along with a fine of 5,000/- for the offence under section 25(1-B)a of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I for three months. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under section 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I for three months. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 17 of C.L.A Act and in default of payment fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self statement of the Informant Sriniwas Kumar, Officer-in-charge of Kolebira Police Station alleging therein that on 20.04.2011, encounter was going on between the police party and naxal outfit P.L.FI. They received confidential information that members of PLFI have taken shelter in the house of these petitioner Ramlal Singh. Thereafter, house of the petitioner Ramlal Singh was raided. Petitioners 2 Ramlal Singh and Sanjay Sahu were arrested and 16 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Ramlal Singh and 15 live cartridges and literature of People Liberation Front of India was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Sanjay Sahu. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of evidence available on record, both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to the concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that live cartridges alleged to have been seized from the petitioners, were not sealed at the spot. It was further submitted that Anil Kumar Singh (P.W.-4) is the Ballistic expert. He has stated that he has received the cartridges in sealed condition. Arun Kumar Singh (P.W-8) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that live cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert in unsealed condition. Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that from the aforesaid facts, serious doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, whether cartridges so recovered from the possession of the petitioners were the same which were examined by the Ballistic Expert. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Versus State of Punjab [(1995) Supp (3) SCC 217], wherein it has been held that non-sealing of the revolver on the spot was a serious infirmity as the possibility of tampering could not be rule out. 5. From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that all the witnesses have supported the fact that 15 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Sahu and 16 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner-Ramlal Singh along with literatures of P.L.F.I. However, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that these live cartridges were not sealed at the spot. It further appears from the statement of Suresh Prasad (P.W-7) that he had sent the live cartridges recovered from the possession of the petitioners to the Ballistic Expert in unsealed condition. The Ballistic Expert has contradicted this fact and stated that he has received the live cartridges in sealed condition. It is apparent that the cartridges so recovered from the possession of the petitioners were not sealed at the place of occurrence. There appears to be serious infirmity, as possibility of tampering could not be ruled out. The fact that the cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert in unsealed condition and 3 the Ballistic Expert received it in sealed condition, raises serious doubt in the prosecution case whether the cartridges which were recovered from the possession of the petitioners and the cartridges which were examined by the Ballistic Expert were one and the same. 6. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not considered this lacuna in the prosecution case while holding the petitioners guilty for the offences under sections 25(1-B)a, 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act. As far as recovery of literature of banned Naxal outfit P.L.F.I is concerned, the aforesaid literatures have not been brought on record by the prosecution. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners under section 25(1-B)a, 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act read with section 17 of C.L.A Act. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is set aside. 8. The revision application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 24th June 2023 Ranjeet/