Jharkhand High Court
Jhaman Parahiya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 March, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1081 of 2004
(Against the Judgment of Conviction dated 24.04.2004 and order of
sentence 28.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(F.T.C.) Latehar, in S.T. No.81 of 2003, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case
No.36 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.191 of 2003.)
1. Jhaman Parahiya
2. Bigan Parahiya
3. Laxman Parahiya ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
12/28.03.2022 This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction
dated 24.04.2004 and order of sentence 28.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Latehar, in S.T. No.81 of 2003, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No.36 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.191 of 2003, whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/149 of IPC and 25(1- B)(a)/35, 26/35, 27 of Arms Act. All the convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousands) each and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months under sections 307/149 of IPC, RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month under section 25(1-B)a/35 of Arms Act, RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month under section- 26/35 of Arms Act, RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-(One Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month under section 27 of Arms Act However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run consecutively.
2. The prosecution case initiated and instituted on the basis of written report of one Forest guard Sushil Pandey (PW 1- informant) 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 on 02.06.2003 at about 6 P.M. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 01.06.2003, the informant along with other forest officials were doing patrolling duty in Betla Forest Area and at about 4.30 P.M. in afternoon, when they reached near Jamuahi place under Betla compartment No.1, they saw eight to ten culprits, out of them some were having country made guns and started firing with country made guns on patrolling party and after firing was over, all the members of patrolling party surrounded the culprits and after chasing, six culprits were arrested by them and rest culprits fled away from there taking the advantage of jungle and bushes. It is further stated that in course of search country made guns were recovered from the possession of each accused persons namely, Laxman Parahiya (appellant No. 3), Jhaman Parahiya(appellant No.
1), Bigan Parahiya(appellant No. 2), and Harilal Parahiya(deceased appellant), and one each Tangi and Chaupahal of Kekar wood was recovered from the possession of the accused Binod Parahiya and Mahendra Manjhi and recovered items were seized in the presence of witnesses and on demand, none could produce any licence and document for having guns with them.
3. Then the informant submitted his written report along with seizure list and production report to O/C Barwadih P.S. to register a case against the culprits. On the basis of the written report, Barwadih, P.S. Case No.36 of 2003 dated 2.06.2003 under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 25(1-B) a/26/27/35 of Arms Act was registered and investigation was taken up.
4. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet on 30.07.2003 against above mentioned accused persons under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 25(1-B) a/26/27/35 of Arms Act. On the basis of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the charges were framed on 03.12.2003 against all accused persons under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 25(1-B) a/35, 26/35, 27 of Arms Act, and after conclusion of the trial the learned trial court passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004
5. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP appearing on behalf of the State.
6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the fact and circumstance of the case and contrary to the settled principles of law and learned court below failed to appreciate the vital omission and commissions in the depositions of PWs and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below is fit to be set-aside.
7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 25(1-B) a/35, 26/35, 27 of Arms Act and no irregularity or any lacuna has been found in the case of the prosecution and therefore this appeal is fit to be dismissed for want of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
8. Having heard learned counsel for parties, perused the entire materials available on record including the lower court record,
9. This Court finds that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused-appellants the prosecution has been able to examine altogether eight witnesses namely, informant P.W. 1 Sushil Pandey, P.W. 2 Shyam Charan Prasad, P.W. 3 Ram Syrup Ram, P.W. 4 Nathuni Mahato, P.W. 5 Green Ram, P.W. 6 Indrasan Ram, P.W. 7 Biran Ram & P.W. 8 Kailash Thakur (I.O.). Apart from the oral evidences, the prosecution has been able to Exhibit the following documents as under. Exhibit 1 seizure list, Exhibit 2 list written report of the informant, Exhibit 3 signature of Shyam Charan Prasad witness in seizure list, Exhibit 4 signature of another seizure witness Ram Syarup Ram, Exhibit 5 signature of seizure list witness 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 Nathuni Mahato, Exhibit 6 forwarding letter in signature S.I. of Binod Kumar, Exhibit 7 command letter of P.S., exhibit 8 formal FIR, Ext. 9 Registration in written report, Exhibit 10 signature of Sri Kamal Kishore Sone, I.A.S. District Magistrate, Latehar at prosecution sanction. Exhibit 11 writing and signature of Sri L. Minz, Reserve Sargent Major, Latehar at Arms Test Report. Apart from these documentary evidences, some material exhibits have also been brought on record i.e. exhibit I, I/2 & I/3- four guns, material exhibit II to II/1 two Tangis.
10. On the other hand nine defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused appellants in order to take the defence that they were not present at the place of occurrence, rather they have arrested from their respective residences in their villages and all the charges levelled against them are false and fabricated.
11. It appears from the record that altogether there were six accused persons against whom the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under, Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 of Arms Act, Sections 26/35 of Arms Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. It further appears that during the course of trial, one of the co-accused namely Mahendra Manjhi absconded and the record of his case was split up from the rest of the co-accused persons. Later on, another co-accused Binod Parahiya also absconded after facing the entire trial on the date of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, but the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was pronounced in his absence and necessary steps were taken by the concerned court below to ensure that he serves the sentence.
12. Further it is evident that four accused persons preferred this appeal namely Jhaman Parahiya, Harilal Parahiya, Bigan Parahiya and Laxman Parahiya and during the course of pending of this appeal appellant Harilal Parahiya died as per the report received from the concerned court In-charge Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C., Latehar vide letter no. 99 dated 15.03.2022 and from perusal of the said report it appears that the said accused appellant no. 2, 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 Harilal Parahiya had expired in April , 2020 and at the instance of the learned defence counsel, the appeal was abated against this deceased appellant as no close relative has come forward to take leave to continue with the appeal on his behalf and therefore rest of the appellants have been renumbered in the cause title of memo of appeal as appellant no.1 Jhaman Parahiya , appellant no.2 Bigan Parahiya, appellant no. 3 Laxman Parahiya.
13. The charges levelled against the accused appellants was that while the informant Sushil Pandey P.W. 1 along with other forest officials were on patrolling duty in the Betla Forest Area, it is alleged that the said forest officials encountered with 10 miscreants near Jamuahi under Betla compartment no. 1, armed with deadly weapons, who started firing with country made loaded guns on the patrolling party, but after surrounding and chasing them the members of the patrolling party apprehended six accused persons, were arrested and four of them were holding country made filling guns and two with tangi and Chaupahal of Kekar Woods and it is stated that seizure list of the recovered articles were prepared at the place of occurrence by the informant in presence of witness.
14. P.W. 1 Sushil Pandey, who is the informant and examined on behalf of the prosecution had supported the case of the prosecution that during the course of the patrolling duty in Betla Forest areas 8 to 10 culprits armed with guns started firing bullets upon them and after surrounding and chasing, six miscreants were arrested and rest of them were managed to run away from the place of occurrence. It has further been stated that in course of search, one country made gun was recovered from the possession of the accused appellant Laxam Parhaiya, Jhamn Parhaiya, Bigan Parhaiya and Hiralal Parahiya (since deceased) and one each tangi and choupahal of kekar wood was recovered from the possession of other co-accused persons namely Binod Parhaiya and Mahendra Manjhi. He further deposed that the seizure list was prepared as they could not show the valid paper for holding these incriminating articles and he has proved the seizure list as Ext- 1 and written report as Ext. 2. In the 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that not a single member of the patrolling party was injured, although the miscreants were firing upon them and the members of the patrolling party was not holding any weapon also.
15. PW - 2 Shyama Charan Prasad was the forest guard and he had also supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that during the course of encounter with the miscreants in Betla Forest area, four of the culprits were apprehended armed with guns and two were arrested with the tangies and choupahl of kekar woods, although this witness could not specifically deposed about who was the accused holding the country made loaded guns and further no specific allegation about any of the accused appellant with respect to their role in the commission of the offence although it is stated that the appellants were apprehended on the spot. This witness has proved his signature in the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext. 3 upon the exhibit 1. From the perusal of Seizure List Ext.1 it is evident that no specific seizure has been disclosed as to from whom the country made filling gun (Bhartua Banduk) has been seized while six accused persons have been named out of whom three were the appellants, namely appellant no.1 Jhaman Parahiya , appellant no.2 Bigan Parahiya, appellant no. 3 Laxman Parahiya.
16. PW - 3 Ram Syrup Ram, PW - 4 Nathuni Mahato and PW - 5 Green Ram were forest officials and the members of the patrolling party and all of them consistently and uniformly deposed that on the date of occurrence, they were members of the patrolling party, when the six accused persons were arrested and out of them, four of them were holding county made filled guns and two of them were holding tangi and choupahal of Kekar wood and thereafter the seizure list was prepared in their presence and these witnesses including PW - 3 and PW - 4 proved their signatures on the seizure list, which were marked as Ext. 4 and Ext. 5 respectively. Seizure list Ext. 1 indicates that cut- woods and 4 (four) country made filled guns were recovered from the place of occurrence, but neither the said guns nor the wood is said to have been recovered or have been 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 made material exhibits during the course of trial.
17. PW - 6 Indrasan Ram and PW - 7 Home Guard constable Biran Ram proved the material Exhibits including four guns and two tangis recovered from possession of the accused persons and said the material exhibits were brought before the court from the store room (Malkhana) of concerned police station and they have proved the four country made filling guns recovered from the conscious possession of the appellants, which have been marked as Ext-1, Ext. 1/1, Ext. 1 / 2 and Ext. 1/3 and forwarding latter of the police stations has been marked as Ext. 6. Further PW - 7 has proved the material exhibits including two tangis (axes) as Ext. II and Ext. II/1 and the Authority letter issued by the concerned police station, which has been marked as Ext.7. All these material exhibits including the country made filled gun and tangis are substantiating the charges levelled against the accused appellants for unlawful possession of the said guns by the accused- appellants along with other persons with the aid of section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
18. PW - 8 Kailash Thakur was the I.O. of this case and in his deposition, he has supported the prosecution case including the place, time and date of the occurrence and also he has proved the formal FIR as Ext. - 8, the registration of the case on the basis of endorsement on the written report, i.e. Ext. 9. This witness has also proved the prosecution sanction order duly issued by the district magistrate, Latehar as Ext. 10 and also he has proved the recovered arms test report issued by the Sergeant Major as Ext. 11.
19. From perusal of the reports including ext. 10, it is manifest that the district, Magistrate, Latehar in exercise of the power vested to him under Section 39 of the Arms Act, sanctions the prosecution of the accused persons namely appellant No.1 Jhaman Parhaiya, appellant No.2 Bigan Parhaiya and appellant No.3 Laxman Parahiya along with three co-accused Harilal Parhaiya, Binod Parhaiya and Mahendar Manjhi,. Similarly Ext. 11 shows that all the four country made filled guns tested by the sergeant major, Latehar have been found to be effective and in running condition substantiating the 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 offence punishable under the Arms Act ,1959.
20. From the evaluation of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, documentary proofs and the material exhibits produced and proved by the prosecution during the course of trial, it is well founded that the prosecution has been able to substantiate that these three appellants, i.e. appellant No.1 Jhaman Parhaiya, appellant No.2 Bigan Parhaiya and appellant No.3 Laxman Parahiya along with other persons were assembled there for cutting jungle woods in an unlawful manner and then during the course of patrolling by the Forest Officials they were apprehended red handed in the Betla Forest Area along with illegal arms namely country made filled guns and Tangis (Axes) which have been exhibited as material exhibits 1 to 1/3 and Material Exhibits II and II/1.It has also come into the evidence that the accused-appellants started firing upon forest officials although no one was injured and after chasing they were apprehended by the forest officials including P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 who uniformly and consistently supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that the accused appellants were carrying the illegal arms and after seeing the Forest Officials started firing upon them but the forest officials after chasing caught them. It is also found proved that from the possession of these three appellants the country made filling guns (Bhartua Banduk) have been recovered. Now the question remains to appreciate the evidences with respect to the nature of offences under the Arms Act and attempt to commit murder is proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.
21. The defence taken on behalf of the accused appellants that in absence of any injury alleged to have been caused on any one of the members of the patrolling party, which is admitted case of the prosecution, no offence under section 307/149 is proved and substantiated. Several defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused appellants from DW - 1 to DW - 9 in order to take the defence, that they were apprehended from their residences 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 at village and not from the place of occurrence, but all these defences are not strengthened rather they get demolished before the consistent depositions and testimonies of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, as it is found from the seizure list and from the testimonies of the witnesses including the informant and P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the I.O. and also the material exhibits that these three accused appellants were apprehended on the spot along with country made filled guns (Bahrua Banduk) and it is very easy for the defence to bring the co-villagers as the witnesses as much as they can in order to say in a blind manner that they have been arrested from the residence at their village and not from the place of occurrence as evident from the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that nothing has been elicited on behalf of the defence to disbelieve the versions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution particularly P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5.
22. Further the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has committed gross error in holding the conviction for the offence punishable under section 307/149 of the IPC in a bland manner without any cogent proof of attempt to commit murder as neither the intention nor the knowledge nor any act by which it is inferred that the accused-appellants have attempted to commit murder of any one of the forest officials including P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5. Neither any injury has been caused nor has any evidence of firing been substantiated by the examination of the Sargent major who had scientifically examined the recovered country made filled guns (Bahrua Banduk). This court finds force in the contentions raised on behalf of the accused-appellants. The learned trial court without evaluating the ingredients of Section 307 and without considering the relevant facts carefully came to a finding that the guilt of the accused is proved for the offence punishable under section 307/149 of the IPC. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the officials 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 chasing the culprits were not carrying any weapons and under such circumstances six culprits were apprehended without sustaining any injury when they stated that the culprits were firing upon indiscriminately upon them is unbelievable and not convincing at all in absence of any injury to anyone.
23. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to sustain an offence under section 307 of the IPC, the presence of intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder, without this there can be no offence under section 307 of IPC, unless the prosecution proves the ingredients of section 300 of IPC and there can be no conviction under section 307 of IPC. In the present case the acts of the appellants are seemingly not sufficient to substantiate their intention or knowledge to commit murder as evident from the relevant facts including the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses including P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5. stated about the injury either of fire arm or Tangi, rather they have stated that they apprehended the accused being armless suggesting the absence of intention or knowledge to cause death under the circumstances as indicated in section 307 of IPC. Further it is found that although the accused appellants had ample opportunities to inflict injuries but intention and knowledge could not be inferred in view of the categorical testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. from whom testimonies it is coherently emanating that none of them had sustained the injuries nor even a slightest evidence has been brought on record as to whether from the country made filled guns recovered from the possession of appellants had been fired or not. The witness who had scientifically examined the said the country made filling gun (Bhartua Banduk) had not been examined during the course of the trial on behalf of the prosecution, therefore the firing from the gun remained unproved.
24. Therefore the guilt of accused-appellants under sections 307/149 is not proved, hence the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under sections 307/149 as held by the learned trial court is not sustained and fit to be set aside. Nevertheless the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the country made filling gun (Bhartua Banduk) from the possession of 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 these three appellants as evaluated from the evidences in the foregoing paragraphs. But the learned trial court has blindly without evaluating the evidences vis-a-vis nature of offences under the Arms Act held the conviction and guilt of the accused appellants blindly under for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1- B)(a)/35,26/35 and Section 27 of Arms Act,1959 without specifying the guilt of the accused appellants pointedly particularly under Section 26 and 27 of the Arms Act,1959 although held guilty for the offence punishable under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act,1959. The learned trial court has miserably failed to hold the guilt of the accused-appellants specifically as to whether it is either under section 26(1) or 26(2) or 26 (3) or 27(1) or 27(2) of the Arms Act,1959 and instead held guilty blindly without appreciating the evidences in the light of the provisions of the offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Arms Act,1959 as both the sections 26 & 27 of the Arms Act,1959 talks about three types of offences which read as under:
[26. Secret contraventions.--
(1) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 3, 4, 10 or 12 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and also with fine.
(2) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 5, 6, 7 or 11 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years and also with fine.
(3) Whoever on any search being made under section 22 conceals or attempts to conceal any arms or ammunition, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine.]
27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.]
25. It is found that the learned trial court did not discuss at all the evidences, with respect to which offences the accused-appellants are found guilty either under section 26(1) or 26(2) or 26 (3) or under all the sub-sections of section 26 and similarly either under 27(1) or 27(2) or 27(3) or under all the sub-sections of Section 27 of Arms act, as both the sections 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 comprise three types of offences but the learned trial court without evaluating the evidences for each offences of sections 26 and 27 of the Arms Act,1959 held blindly and mindlessly guilty for the offences punishable under sections 26/35 and 27 of the Arms Act,1959 which is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside.
26. In the backdrop the conviction of accused-appellants for the offences punishable under sections 307/149 26/35 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is found bad in law inasmuch as the learned trial court has committed gross error in holding the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149, 26/35 and 27 of Arms Act as discussed above. The learned trial court without appreciating and evaluating the evidences in a holistic and comprehensive manner passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence under sections 307/149, 26/35, 27 of Arms Act and therefore this Court holds that the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149, 26/35 and 27 of Arms Act are bad in law and fit to be set-aside.
27. However, it is well founded from the testimonies of the witnesses that the aforesaid three appellants along with other accused appellants were arrested by the forest officials at Jamaui 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 under the Betla forest area in Compartment No.1 along with the country made filled guns (Bhartua Banduk) and thereafter all the guns have been duly examined technically and found to be in an active and running condition. The sanction of the prosecution has also been duly accorded by the district magistrate and the prosecution sanction order has also been proved and marked as ext.-
10. Although the forest record has not been recovered and brought on record as material exhibits but their intention of illegal cutting of the forest wood and their arrest on the spot with red handed country made filled guns(Bhartua Banduk) and with the forest wood get corroborated by the consistent depositions of the witnesses including PW - 1 PW - 2, PW -3 and PW - 4 supported by the formal witness PW - 5, PW - 6, PW -7 and PW - 8 and the exhibit- 1 seizure list, Ext-2: written report of the informant, Ext.10: sanction for the prosecution, Ext.11: scientific report about the condition of the guns recovered and material exhibits I to I/3 and material exhibits II to II / I as appraised above in detail.
28. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court upholds the conviction against the three appellants i.e. appellant No.1 Jhaman Parhaiya, appellant No.2 Bigan Parhaiya and appellant No.3 Laxman Parahiya for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) a/ 35 of Arms Act,1959 by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149 of IPC and 26/35 and 27 of Arms Act passed against these appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Latehar, in S.T. No.81 of 2003, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No.36 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.191 of 2003.
29. It has been pointed out that all the three appellants i.e. appellant No.1 Jhaman Parhaiya, appellant No.2 Bigan Parhaiya and appellant No.3 Laxman Parahiya have already remained in jail almost about one year and eight months from 03.06.2003 to 03.02.2005 and there is nothing on record to show their criminal history, and it is urged by learned counsel of the appellant that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence, as learned 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ).1081 of 2004 court below has passed very stringent punishment and these appellants do not deserve such a stringent punishment under the facts and circumstances of this case for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) a/ 35 of Arms Act,1959
30. From the record, it is found true that the offence was of the year 2003, almost 18 years back and that the appellants have already remained in jail for a long period of time about two years and therefore I do not find just and fair to send all the three appellants again in jail as no useful purpose would be served to send them jail again because they have already suffered the trauma and miseries of such a long criminal proceedings, further there is nothing on the record to indicate their criminal history therefore the ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of period already undergone by the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) a/ 35 of Arms Act,1959 by setting aside the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court below for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) a/ 35 of Arms Act, 1959.
31. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed as above.
32. Since all the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.
33. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 28.03.2022/NAFR R.Kumar/-