Upendra Kumar Rana v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 460 of 2010 Upendra Kumar Rana … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opp. Party ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For Petitioner For the Opp. Party-State : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
Legal Reasoning
----- : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate 09/21.09.2023 Heard the parties. --- 2. The petitioner Upendra Kumar Rana has filed this revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2010, passed by Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga (as His Lordship was the then) in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2010, passed by Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. Case No.399 of 2004 arising out Bhandra P.S. Case No.40 of 2004, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year and six months alongwith fine of Rs.400/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment of 15 days. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo S.I. for eight months for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act alongwith fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment of seven days. Period already undergone by the petitioner during trial was ordered to be set off. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement of S.I. Maheshwar Prasad Ranjan, Officer In-charge of Bhandra Police Station alleging therein that on 26.10.2004 at about 10:00 A.M., house of the petitioner situated in Badgai was raided and on search before two independent witnesses a loaded country made pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from his possession. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the -2- record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 5. From the perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that Uma Shankar Sharma P.W.1, Hawaldar Prithvi Raj Singh P.W.2 and Budhdeo Kharia P.W.3 all have stated that on 26.10.2004, house of the petitioner was raided by Bhandra Police. These witnesses were members of raiding party. They have stated that on search a loaded country made pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. All these witnesses have identified or have claimed to identify the petitioner in the dock. 6. Uma Shankar Sharma P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that petitioner Upendra Kumar Rana was searched by the informant Maheshwar Prasad Ranjan. He has also stated that the informant Maheshwar Prasad Ranjan was searched before independent witnesses. Hawaldar Prithvi Raj Singh P.W.2 in his cross-examination. He has stated that he was not acquainted with the petitioner from before. Petitioner was caught by Ram Bahadur Paswan, who was also member of the raiding party. Budhdeo Kharia P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that the petitioner was apprehended just outside his house. He has further stated at paragraph-16 that the seizure list was prepared in the house of the petitioner. 7. The informant Maheshwar Prasad Ranjan has been examined as P.W.8. He has supported the allegation as made out in his self-statement. He has stated that on 26.10.2004, house of the petitioner was raided and on search a country made pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from his possession. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had given his search before independent witnesses before searching the petitioner. Nagendra Prasad P.W.9 is the formal witness, who has produced the recovered firearms, which were marked Exhibit-M/1 and M/2. Rajendra Prasad P.W.6 is the expert, who had examined the seized firearms, according to this witness, the seized firearms were in working condition. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the seized firearms were received by him in sealed condition. The seal was opened in his office. -3- 8. From the perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that the seizure list is Exhibit-1. From the perusal of the same, it appears that a country made pistol and live cartridge were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 26.10.2004 at about 10:15A.M., a copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the petitioner. The report of the sergeant major, who had examined the recovered firearms is Exhibit-2. From perusal of which it appears that both the country made pistol and live cartridge recovered from the possession of the petitioner were in working condition. 9. Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Arms Act granted by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lohardaga is Exhibit- 5. 10. From the aforesaid fact, it transpires that the informant and the other witnesses, who were members of the raiding party have proved that on 26.10.2004, house of the petitioner was raided and a country made pistol and a live cartridge were recovered from his possession. The prosecution has also been able to prove by way of both oral and documentary evidence that the recovered firearms were in working condition. Prosecution has also brought on record the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner under Arms Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a correct finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act. As the house of the petitioner was raided and firearms were recovered from him, while he was present in his house, no case under Section 26 of the Arms Act will be made out because the same was not recovered from a public place. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. However, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court holding the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and order of sentence is set aside. 12. It was submitted that the offence had taken place in the year 2004, there is nothing on the record that the petitioner has been convicted in any other case. It was finally submitted that before amendment in -4- provision of Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act, the minimum sentence prescribed was period of one year which could be extended to three years. 13. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned court below directing the petitioner to undergo S.I. for one and six months alongwith fine of Rs.400/- is reduced to S.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of the payment of fine, the petitioner is further directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days. The period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial and during pendency of this criminal revision application, if any, is set off. 14. The criminal revision application is party allowed.
Decision
15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Jay/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)