Jharkhand High Court
Avani Kumar Bhagat & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 628
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 629 of 2002
---
1. Avani Kumar Bhagat, son of Sidhinath Bhagat, resident of village -
Ghat, P.S. Pathargama, District - Godda (Jharkhand)
2. Sambhu Kumar Bhagat, son of Late Shiv Narayan Bhagat, resident
of village - Tulsikita, Police Station - Pathargama, District - Godda
(Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. K. K. Ojha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. S. K. Deo, A.P.P.
---
05/10.07.2017Heard Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Deo, learned A.P.P., for the State.
This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2002 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2001/06 of 2002 and 29 of 2001/08 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in Pathargama P.S. Case No. 111 of 1997 on 30.05.2001 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 25(i)(a) and 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months has been affirmed.
The prosecution story in brief is that a special task force was constituted on the information that some accused persons were hiding in the house of the petitioner no. 2 with the booty of dacoity in connection with Godda (M) P. S. Case No. 228 of 1997. It is alleged that after entering Sanha the task force entered into the house of the petitioner no. 2 and they found three accused persons including the petitioners were sitting who tried to flee away but they were apprehended.
Based on the aforesaid allegation Pathargama P.S. Case No. 111 of 1997 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. Submission of charge-sheet led to taking of cognizance and thereafter the charges were framed and trial proceeded. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.05.2001 was pleased to convict the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 25(i)(A) and 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
-2-The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2001/06 of 2002 and 29 of 2001/08 of 2002 which was however dismissed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda on 18.09.2002.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no iota of evidence to suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. It has also been stated that the seizure itself has been falsified in view of the seizure list witnesses having turned hostile. Learned counsel had also put forward an alternative argument to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence be suitably modified since the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution for almost two decades and has also remained for a considerable period in custody.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
P.W. - 1, Gupteshwar Singh, was a member of raiding party who has disclosed that a country made Pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioners.
P.W. - 2, Jiyalal Arya, is a seizure list witness who has not supported the seizure of arm and, therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W. - 3, Ganga Das, was also a seizure list witness who although had been declared hostile by the prosecution but this witness had admitted his signature on the seizure list.
P.W. - 4, Om Prakash Singh, had disclosed that he was In-charge of special task force. This witness has further stated that he had picked two independent witnesses and thereafter raided the premises of the petitioner no. 2 pursuant to which the country made pistols were recovered.
P.W. - 5, Anil Kumar Singh, is a Sub Inspector of Police who was also a member of the raiding party and who had also supported the prosecution case.
P.W. - 6, Shivendra Sharma, was a Sub Inspector of Police and also a member of raiding party who had disclosed that he had entered into the house after the petitioners were caught.
P.W. - 7, Kaniya Prasad, is the Investigating Officer who has stated that he had got the arms examined and obtained the report as well as the sanction order.
-3-It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that all the witnesses are police personnel who had conducted the raid in the house of the petitioner no. 2 on receiving information that some persons had gathered in the house of the petitioner no. 2 with booty of dacoity which led to institution of Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 228 of 1997. There are consistent evidence on record regarding seizure of fire arms from the possession of each of the petitioners. No valid licence could be produced by the petitioners with respect to the fire arms found from their possession. The sanction order has also been brought on record which has been marked as Exhibit - 3. The seized pistols were also brought before the learned trial court which was marked as I and II.
The Investigating Officer had disclosed about sending the pistols to the Sergeant Major and after testing the arms were given to him in a sealed condition. Thus the evidence of P.W. - 1, P.W. - 4, P.W. - 5 and P.W. - 6 who all were members of the raiding party have sufficiently corroborated each other statements and nothing has been brought by the defence to disbelieve their testimony. Such circumstance, therefore, have rightly been considered by the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 25 (i)(a) and 26(i) of the Arms Act.
The learned trial court has also rightly appreciated the materials available on records before dismissing the appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners and accordingly, the same is, hereby, affirmed.
However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the arms were recovered simplicitor and that the petitioners have remained for a considerable length of time in custody. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case for the last more than two decades. Such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioners to reduction in the sentence imposed upon them. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone.
This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-