Deo Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 772 of 2010 --------- Deo Kumar Singh ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party WITH Cr. Revision No. 773 of 2010 --------- Madan Lal Daga ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party WITH Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2010 --------- Ganga Prasad ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate --------- (in Cr. Revision No. 772 of 2010) (in Cr. Revision No. 773 of 2010) : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate (in Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2010) For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. (in Cr. Revision No. 772 of 2010) : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. (in Cr. Revision No. 773 of 2010) : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P. P. (in Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2010) --------- 05/28.03.2023. Heard the parties. All the aforesaid three criminal revisions arise of the same common
Decision
judgment, accordingly, these criminal revisions are being disposed of by a common order. These petitioners have preferred these criminal revisions against the judgment dated 28.05.2010 passed by Sri Prem Prakash Pandey, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.24/2008, Cr. Appeal No.26/2008, Cr. Appeal No.27/2008 and Cr. Appeal No.30/2008, whereby and wherein the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, dismissed the appeals of these petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Shiv Pujan Tiwari, the learned C.J.M., Bokaro dated 29.02.2008 in connection with Bokaro Steel -2- City P.S. Case No.337/1999, corresponding to G.R. No.1122/1999 (T.R. No.84/2008) holding the petitioners guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, thereby sentencing the petitioners to undergo R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- for offences under Sections 25(1-b)(a) read with 35 of the Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, they further directed to undergo S.I. for three months. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant namely Babu Ram Bhagat alleging therein that on 18.09.1999 at about 11:00 am, he had laid a barricade near Sector-2D High School for checking the vehicles. The informant intercepted a Maruti Zen bearing registration No. BR-17D-1366. These petitioners were found travelling on the said vehicle alongwith co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. On search six round pistol alongwith 26 lives cartridges were recovered from possession of co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. It was submitted that petitioner Madan Lal Daga (in Cr. Revision No.773/2010) is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was driving the said vehicle and petitioner Ganga Prasad (in Cr. Revision No.781/2010) was sitting in the front and petitioner Deo Kumar Singh (in Cr. Revision No.772/2010) was sitting in the rear seat alongwith co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the owner of the vehicle Madan Lal Daga was taking the petitioner Ganga Prasad to hospital. On the way petitioner Deo Kumar Singh took lift in the vehicle alongwith co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. It was further submitted that in the statement of the investigating officer this fact has come that both Deo Kumar Singh and Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu had taken lift in his vehicle and this fact has also been admitted by petitioner Deo Kumar Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the firearms, so recovered were not found in the conscious possession of these petitioners, as it was recovered from co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu on his personal search. It was finally submitted that these petitioners had no knowledge that co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu was carrying the seized firearms and it was not within their control. -3- Learned A.P.P. has submitted that petitioners were found travelling on the same vehicle in which co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu was travelling from whose possession firearms were recovered. 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 these petitioners. Babu Ram Bhagat P.W.6. and others members of the police party, who were checking the vehicle at the place of occurrence i.e. Nausad Ali P.W.2 and Md. Kismat P.W.3 have supported the prosecution case and have stated that on 18.09.1999, blockade was laid in front of Sector-2D High School. A Maruti Zen, which was driven by the petitioner Madan Lal Daga was intercepted. The petitioner Ganga Prasad was sitting in the front while petitioner Deo Kumar Singh was sitting in the rear seat alongwith co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. On search six round pistol and 26 lives cartridges were recovered from possession of co- convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. They have been cross- examined at length, but there is nothing in the cross examination to doubt their veracity. The prosecution has adduced the seizure list (exhibit-5). From perusal of which it transpires that a six round pistol was recovered from possession of co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu alongwith 26 lives cartridges. It was tucked in the waist of the co-convict and cartridges were found in a bag, which he was carrying. Rama Harijan is an expert, who has examined the recovered firearms and has stated that the firearms recovered from possession of co- convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu were working condition. He has proved his report, which is exhibit-2. From the perusal of the report of the ballistic expert, which has been adduced by the exhibit-2, it appears that the seized firearms were in working condition. Prosecution has also adduced the sanction order for the prosecution of these petitioners for the offences under Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and this sanction order dated 16.09.1999 under the signature of District Magistrate, Bokaro, is exhibit-4. -4- From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of recovery of firearms from the possession of co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. It has also been proved that recovered firearms were in working conditions. Prosecution has also proved the sanction order for prosecution of these petitioners. Now the question is whether the petitioners can be held accountable under Section 35 of the Arms Act, for being in joint possession of the firearms, so, recovered from co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. Ramashis Raut P.W.4 is the I.O. of this case. He has stated at paragraph-11 of his cross-examination that the petitioner Madan Lal Daga has stated that he was going to co-operative colony for getting the petitioner Ganga Prasad treated at Bokaro General Hospital. On the way, the petitioner Deo Kumar Singh and co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu took lift in his vehicle. He has further stated that the petitioner Deo Kumar Singh has also stated that he had taken lift in the vehicle of Madan Lal Daga alongwith co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., petitioner Deo Kumar Singh has admitted this fact. The Investigating Officer has not investigated in the light of above statement made by petitioner Madan Lal Daga and admission made by petitioner Deo Kumar Singh. The seized firearms were not being displayed by co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu, rather the pistol was kept in his trouser and cartridges were kept in a bag, which was being carried by him. It is not the case of prosecution that firearms were kept in the vehicle, in which all the petitioners were found travelling. Prosecution has not brought any material on the record to show that the petitioners had knowledge of illegal firearms being carried by co-convict Brajendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu. In order to secure conviction of the petitioners under Section 25(1- B)(a)/35 of the Arms Act, it was sine qua non for prosecution to have brought material on the record to show that the petitioners had the knowledge that co-convict was carrying illegal firearms. -5- Considering the entire gamut of the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these Criminal Revisions are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court holding the petitioners guilty for offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/35 of the Arms Act is set aside. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-