Pankaj Yadav, Son of Vijay Yadav, resident of Village – Bajkum, P.O. & P.S v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 157 of 2017 ------ Pankaj Yadav, Son of Vijay Yadav, resident of Village – Bajkum, P.O. & P.S. – Latehar, District – Latehar. .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------ ------ ORAL ORDER Order No. 16/Dated- 28.06.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. No. 325 of 2010, whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation under Section 26 of the Arms Act, has been dismissed. Page 1 of 6 3. Factual matrix giving rise to the case of prosecution is that on 16.06.2010, the police party in course of patrolling duty caught the petitioner in suspect condition and brought to Police Station for interrogation and on interrogation, the petitioner confessed that he is member of Bhartiya Communist Party Maoist and has concealed arms and ammunition in a bush near Chamra Godown, Railway Station, Latehar. The police rushed to the place, where arms and ammunition were concealed by the petitioner and recovered pistol and cartridge from there. Seizure list was prepared. 4. On the basis of aforesaid statement of P.S. In-charge, Latehar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2010 was registered and the I.O. after investigation has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 25 (1-b) a / 26 of the Arms Act and accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, on 27.08.2010, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 25 (1-b) a / 26 of the Arms Act, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. On completion of the prosecution witnesses, Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, the petitioner stated that the allegation alleged against him is false and concocted and he is innocent. 5. After conclusion of trial, present petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 25 (1-b) a / 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced as aforesaid. Page 2 of 6 6. Assailing their conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, which was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar vide judgment dated 05.12.2016 and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was upheld and confirmed, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent and has been convicted and sentenced in this case arbitrarily and without any cogent and reliable evidence by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. The impugned judgments and order suffer from perversity. 8. It is further submitted that as per F.I.R. simple allegation against the petitioner is that at 6:30 A.M., he was near standing near the police station. He was apprehended on suspicion and brought to police station and upon interrogation, he disclosed about concealment of some firearm and cartridge in the bush near the railway track besides leather godown. The arms and ammunition were recovered by police and petitioner was involved in this false case. 9. It is further submitted that none of the seizure list witnesses have been examined in this case. The seizure list does not bear the signature of independent witness, which is against the mandatory Page 3 of 6 provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. It is also surprising that seized arms and ammunition were never sealed on the spot nor produced before the concerned Magistrate and the Sergeant Major, who examined the working condition of the arms has also not been examined. 10. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also observed in its judgment that on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner, the recovery of pistol and cartridges from bush have been proved by the prosecution, however, it is also pointed out that P.W.-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not seen any police officer while bringing pistol from bush. The I.O. has also admitted that the fire arms has also not been sealed on the spot and it was produced before the Magistrate. Thereafter, sent to the Sergeant Major for inspection. It is also pointed that the seizure list witnesses were not examined. Inspite of these grave infirmity in the prosecution story and evidence, the conviction and sentence of petitioner was affirmed and upheld by the appellate court. Petitioner has no criminal background and never convicted for any offence. He has been made escape goat of the circumstances and made prey of police atrocity. Hence, impugned judgments and order are fit to be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and Page 4 of 6 submitted that petitioner has confessed his guilt and in pursuance of his confessional statement, pistol and cartridges have been recovered, which has been made material exhibit before the Court. There is concurrent finding of guilty of the petitioner. Hence, this revision has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above and also perused the trial court record and the judgment of both the courts below. It appears that 09 witnesses have been examined, but exhibit-1, which is seizure list, does not contain the exact place from where it was recovered and it also does not found signature of petitioner or his thumb impression to justify its genuineness. Moreover, seized materials were absolutely not produced in a sealed cover before the trial court. The Sergeant Major, who examined the working condition of the pistol, has also not been examined by the prosecution as witness. The whole prosecution story appears to be shrouded with doubt and cannot be acted upon, as such, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the concerned trial court and the appellate court appears to be perverse. 13. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgments and order of the learned trial court as well as appellate court are set aside and the revision is allowed. Page 5 of 6 14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. Sunil/-NAFR