Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 736 of 2005
with
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 802 of 2005
with
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 820 of 2005
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2005 passed by the learned 1stAddl. Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 45/2004 and Sessions Trial No. 03/2004, arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2003, Rajmahal, Sahibganj, Jharkhand.) Guddu Ansari @ Md. Sahid Ansari (Cr. A. (SJ) No. 736 of 2005) Banmali Sah (Cr. A. (SJ) No. 802 of 2005) Dular Chand Saha (Cr. A. (SJ) No. 820 of 2005) ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent (In all the appeals)
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Advocate (Cr. A. (SJ) No. 736 & 802 of 2005) Mr. Deen Dayal Saha, Advocate (Cr. A. SJ No. 820 of 2005) For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
-------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR Order No. 06: Dated: 16th August, 2022
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2005 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 45/2004 and Sessions Trial No. 03/2004, arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2003, Rajmahal, Sahibganj, Jharkhand whereby and whereunder all the appellants were convicted and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are as under-
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 S.N. NAME OF APPELLANTS HELD GUILTY (U/S.) SENTENCE 1 Guddu Ansari @ Md. Shahid 489-B/120-B IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) Ansari years and a fine of rupees 2000/-(Rupees two thousands) and in case of default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months.
489-C of IPC RI for 3 (three) years.
2 Banmali Sah 489-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and a fine of rupees 2000/-(Rupees two thousands) and in case of default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months.
489-C of IPC RI for 3 (three) years.
3 Dular Chand Saha 489-B/120-B IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and a fine of rupees 2000/-(Rupees two thousands) and in case of default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months.
489-C of IPC RI for 3 (three) years.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose out of self-statement of S.I. Shiv Narayan Kamat, Officer In-Charge of Ranga P.S. on 19.04.2003 at 00:30 hours at Jhikatiya (Bindhydham Mela),which is marked as Ext. 3, in brief is that:
On the night of 19.04.2003, the informant Shiv Narayan Kamat who happened to be the Officer In-Charge of Ranga P.S. within dis- trict Sahibganj was on his duty at the fair of Bindhydham along with other police personnel. When he reached near Sobha theatre, he saw a boy aged about 20/22 years standing there and several people sur- rounded him and making hulla. The Manager and booking clerk of Sobha Theatre came there and pointed to the boy and told the in- formant that the boy was purchasing a ticket of Theatre by produc- ing a 50 Rupees counterfeit currency note and so he denied to give any ticket. The people assembled there also told the informant about the counterfeit currency note in possession of the boy. The inform- ant asked the name of the boy who disclosed his name as Banmali Saha S/o Hari Prasad Saha village, Kelabari, P.S. Radhanagar, Dis- trict Sahibganj. The informant searched his person and recovered one counterfeit currency note of rupees 50/- denomination from the upper pocket of the shirt. The currency note appeared to be the counterfeit. Thereafter, the informant also recovered nine counterfeit
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 currency notes of Rs. 50- (Rupees fifty) denomination from his rear pocket of his pant (trousers) thus, the informant recovered altogeth- er 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) denomina- tion which bore only one no. 6CA-074233. The accused confessed his guilt and further disclosed the name of Dular Chand Saha of Vil- lage-Barharwa Telipara after taking fake currency notes from Gud- du Ansari @ Shahid Ansari of Village Jhiketiya handed over to him on 55% commission to circulate the counterfeit currency notes in the fair.
A seizure list was prepared and the informant on the basis of his self-statement, registered a case against the accused Banmali Sah, Guddu Ansari @ Sahid Ansari and Dular Chand Saha u/s 489 A, 489 B, 489 C and 120- B of IPC and directed Stephen Ekka, A.S.I. to investigate into the case. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under the above sections against Banmali Sah, Dular Chand Saha and Guddu Ansari @ Sahid Ansari and also filed sup- plementary charge sheet against the accused persons Daud Das. The learned Addl. C.J.M., Rajmahal took cognizance of the offence ac- cordingly and after complying with the provisions u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions. Learned A.D.J.- IInd Rajmahal, Sahibganj had framed charge on 14.05.2004 against all the accused persons under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, and 120-B of IPC.
3. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. A. (SJ) Nos. 736 & 802 of 2005 and Mr. Deen Dayal Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. A. (SJ) No. 820 of 2005 and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State in all the appeals.
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 Arguments on behalf of the learned Counsels for the appellants
5. It is submitted on behalf of all the appellants that the learned trial court did not appreciate the fact that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and it has caused prejudice to the defence of the appellants and further it has been pointed out that as a matter of fact there was no recovery of any notice from the conscious and exclusive possession of the appellants and the appreciation of the learned trial court has not been done judiciously and there is no legal evidence of conspiracy against the appellants. It has also been pointed out that all the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 489-C of IPC and, therefore, consequently there was no legal evidence to hold the conviction against the appellants u/s 489-B and 489-C r/w section 120-B of IPC. It has also been pointed out that seizure list witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P. for the State
6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and stated that the accused appellant was arrested from the spot with the counterfeit notes which has been marked as Ext. I series and in the deposition, P.W. 7 - Branch Manager categorically deposed about the counterfeit notes were recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant Banmali Sah and he was arrested on the spot and on the basis of his confessional statement, the other co-accused Guddu Ansari @ Md. Shahid and Dulal Chand Saha were arrested along with counterfeit currency notes and, therefore the learned trial court rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and, thus this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal and Findings
7. Having heard the parties perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court Record.
8. In order to substantiate, the charges levelled against all the appellants the prosecution has been able to examine altogether eight witnesses:-
P.W.1-Jai Kumar Singh, constable P.W.2-Rash Bihari Yadav, constable P.W.3-Antu Hembram, constable P.W.4-Md. Sadique, constable P.W.5-Mantu Jha, (seizure list witness) P.W.6-Radhe Kumar Sah, (seizure list witness) P.W.7-Sanjeev Narayan Mahanty, (Branch Manager of S.B.I.) P.W.8-Shiv Narayan Kamath, S.I. and informant, P.W. 9- Ram Kumar Singh (Manager of Theater) Apart from oral evidences some documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of prosecution which are- Ext.-1- signature of witness Mantu Jha on seizure list, Ext.-1/A- signature of witness Radhe Kumar Sah on seizure list, Ext.-1/B- signature of witness Radhe Kumar Sah on seizure list, Ext.-1/C- seizure list, Ext.-1/D- seizure list, Ext.-1/E- seizure list, Ext.-2- S.B.I. BHO Branch Manager report dt. 28.05.2003 in the pen & signature of S.N. Mohanty, Branch Manager S.B.I., Ext.-3 self-statement, Ext.-I to I/49- Fifty notes of Rupees fifty
9. The informant P.W. 8- Shiv Narayan Kamath, S.I. stated that a fair was going on Vindhyawasini Dham where he was on his duty accompanied by the constables and he was told by the Manager of 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 the theatre Ram Kumar Singh and booking clerk Suresh Mehta in the fair that a boy was purchasing a ticket by presenting a counterfeit Rupees 50 (fifty) currency note and he disclosed his name as Banmali Sah (the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 802 of 2005), thereupon having been received the said information, this informant made a search of the boy, in person, upon which a 50 (fifty) rupee counterfeit note was recovered from his pocket. This witness stated that he had verified all the currency notes possessed by this witness and found that there was no water mark and photocopy of Gandhiji was clearly visible in the light and after being satisfied that the notes were counterfeit he searched entire body and recovered 9 more fifty Rupees counterfeit currency from the rear pocket and found altogether 10 counterfeit notes of Rupees 50 (fifty) denomination. He further stated that all the notes were bearing single no. 6 C. A. 074233. This witness further stated that the accused had disclosed that the accomplice Guddu Anssari @ Shahid Ansari (appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 736 of 2005) and Dular Chand Saha (appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 820 of 2005) had given him counterfeit notes to circulate in the market on 55% commission. This witness had prepared seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1/C, 1/D and 1/E. He further proved his self-statement which has been marked as Ext. 3 and after registering the case the investigation was assigned to A.S.I. Stephen Ekka. He further stated that he had also arrested Dulal Chand Saha in fair and recovered 21 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 50/- (rupees fifty) denomination from the person of Dular Chand Saha and after conducting the raid in the house of Guddu Ansari 19 notes of rupees 50 were recovered from his possession and all these notes were bearing one number mentioned as 6 C. A. 074233. This witness has proved all the seized notes as material exhibits during the course of the trial Ext. I to I/
49. He has identified all the accused persons namely Guddu Ansari, 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 Banmali Sah and Dular Chand Saha in the Court. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the defence, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve from the version of this witness although it has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there had been some discrepancies found in the deposition of the witness with respect to the seizure of counterfeit notes from the accused Banmali Sah at the time of the occurrence. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and it was quite naturel that a police officer who had arrested the accused persons with counterfeit currency note in the crowd was not in a position to remember the colour of the currency at the time of the deposition in course of trial which did not cause prejudice to case of the prosecution. This witness has systematically prepared the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1/C which was the seizure from the accused Guddu Ansari, Ext. 1/D is the seizure list of accused Dular Chand Saha and the Ext. 1/E is the seizure list of Banmali Sah and as such no discrepancy has been found in the deposition and testimony and the same has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court.
10. Another witnesses P.W. 1 Jai Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 Rash Bihari Yadav, P.W. 3 Antu Hembrom, P.W. 4 Md. Sadik were the police constables and the members of the police raiding party headed by the informant P.W. 8 Shiv Narayan Kamath and they have consistently supported the case to the extent that the sole appellant Banmali Sah of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 802 of 2005 was caught on the spot red handed with counterfeit currency note which was recovered from his possession. It is true that the witnesses did not disclose about the name of the other accused persons, but, it has come in the evidence that on the basis of confessional statement of the accused Banmali Sah, the other two accused appellants namely Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha were arrested along with 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 counterfeit currency notes and, therefore, clear-cut deposition of theses witnesses fully supported the case of the prosecution although they did not categorically state that these two appellants Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha were also arrested from the spot or not.
In the cross examination also nothing has been brought forth on behalf of the appellants to disbelieve the version that the accused-appellant Banmali Sah was caught red handed along with the counterfeit notes and further from the conscious possession of other appellants namely Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha counterfeit notes were also recovered and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the deposition of the witnesses and came to the finding that they have also supported the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W. 5 Mantu Jha is the seizure list witness who has been declared hostile although he has proved his signature on the seizure list on Ext. I.
12. P.W. 6 Radhe Kumar Saha also another seizure list witness who has also proved his signature on seizure list which is marked as Ext. 1/A and 1/B although this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution other than the signatures on the list, but, in view of the categorical deposition of the informant P.W. 8, who had prepared seizure list, has proved seizure list about the counterfeit notes recovered from the possession of the accused appellants.
13. P.W. 7- Sanjeev Narayan Mohanty, Branch Manager of SBI, Prariya Branch has stated in his defence that on the date of occurrence he was posted at Barharwa Branch of S.B.I. and Ranga Police produced before him fifty pieces of fifty rupees denomination notes for verification. He verified the notes and found all the notes to be counterfeit. He has proved his report as Ext. 2 (with objection). The learned defence counsel has submitted that he had raised 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 objection while tendering in evidence because this witness has not produced any authority slip that he was authorized to verify the counterfeit currency note. In my view, his contention is not tenable on the ground that in his cross examination he has very specifically stated that he has been duly authorized by the Reserve Bank of India to verify the counterfeit notes. He has further stated in his cross examination that these notes were not sealed, but, all the notes were bearing same and similar number. He further stated in his cross examination that mark of distinction between the original notes and fake notes are as under: Water Mark, contains Emblem of Gandhiji, Platinum wire is straight and vertical and in original notes Bharat is written in small letters which can be seen by note detector. This Court also does not find anything in his evidence to disbelieve his version and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the deposition of this witness as he happened to be an independent witness being the Branch Manager of SBI. His evidence is wholly reliable and trustworthy.
14. P.W. 9 Ram Kumar Singh is the manager of the theatre. This witness stated that he informed the informant about the counterfeit notes recovered from the possession of the appellant Banmali Sah and upon whose statement, further search was conducted and the counterfeit notes were recovered from the possession of other two appellants. He deposed that at the time of occurrence he was inside the theatre , meanwhile one employee told him that a man has been found having counterfeit currency note of fifty rupees denomination and police has arrested him. Thereafter, this witness stated that he was told by the officer in-charge and he proved the signature on the seizure list i.e. Ext. 1/F, thus this witness has supported the part of occurrence and that is strong circumstantial evidence proving the commission of the offence by the accused persons. This witness happens to be an independent witness and not interested witness 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 and no animosity can be attributed to him nor even suggested by the defence in cross examination.
15. In view of the evaluation of the testimonies of these witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution it is found that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and found the appellant Banmali Sah guilty for the offence punishable u/s 489-B and 489-C of IPC and appellants Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha guilty for the offence punishable u/s 489-B/120-B and 489-C of IPC
16. The learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that non-examination of I.O. has caused prejudice to the case of the appellants. It is found that in the cross-examination attention with respect to the earlier statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. under section 161 of the Cr.P.C examined on behalf of the prosecution has not been drawn and, therefore, non- examination of the I.O. did not cause prejudice to the accused appellants, further it is also found that the allegations as set out in the FIR have been consistently and uniformly supported and corroborated by the informant P.W. 8 and other witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 and, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubts. It is found that the accused appellant Banmali Sah was arrested by the police on the spot along with the counterfeit notes and on the basis of his confessional statement Guddu Ansari and Dular Chandra Saha were searched and on search the counterfeit notes were recovered from their possession also. Thus, the prosecution has proved the criminal conspiracy of the two appellants Guddu Ansari and Dular Chandra Saha with the third appellant Banmali Sah amongst each other and the material exhibits of counterfeit notes have also been proved and brought on record vide Ext. I series which are the seized currency notes and produced before the court during the course of the trial and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 material Exts. I to I/49 that these notes were counterfeits and thus, the charges u/ss 489-B/120-B and 489-C of IPC are also proved against the Dular Chand Saha and Guddu Ansari.
17. In the backdrop, this Court finds that the learned trial court has not committed any error in the appreciation of the evidences and accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant Banmali Sah for the offences punishable u/s 489-B and 489-C of IPC and against the appellants Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha for the offence punishable u/s 489-B and 489-C r/w section 120-B of IPC deserves to be sustained. Hence, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant Banmali Sah for the offences punishable u/s 489-B and 489-C of IPC and against the appellants Guddu Ansari and Dular Chand Saha for the offence punishable u/s 489-B and 489-C r/w section 120-B of IPC by the learned trial court in Sessions Case No. 45/2004 and Sessions Trial No. 03/2004, arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2003.
18. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found that all the appellants have already in remained in jail for a long period of time, the appellant Guddu Ansari had remained in jail custody total for a period about 2 years 04 months 10 days, Banmali Sah remained in jail custody for 2 years 03 months and 17 days, and Dular Chand Saha remained in jail custody for about 8 months 12 days.
19. Further, it is found that the said occurrence is of the year 2003 about 20 years ago and all the appellants are suffering from the trauma and misery of the criminal trial since long and it is also evident from the record that no criminal history is found against any of the appellants. It is also submitted by the learned defence counsel for the appellants that at the time of commission of the offence they were about 32 to 35 years and over a period of time they have also reached to their middle age and having taken into consideration the 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 aforesaid facts and circumstances with respect to the mitigating factors in awarding sentence, the justice would be meted out if all the appellants were sentenced to the term of imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and further sentenced to impose fine instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to the appellants. It would be just and appropriate to sentence them for the period already under gone by them and further to impose fine. Accordingly, this Court imposes sentence of imprisonment to all the appellants for the period of imprisonment already undergone by them under all the counts and further imposes sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) collectively under all the counts by setting aside the impugned order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against these appellants in Sessions Case No. 45/2004 and Sessions Trial No. 03/2004, arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2003.
20. It is further directed that in case of default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) as awarded by this Court, the appellants will undergo SI for a period of 3 (three) years.
21. Since, the appellants are on bail and, therefore, a time period of four months is given to the appellants from today to make payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only).
22. The appellants may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment they deposit the fine amount they (appellants) shall be released forthwith on deposit of said fine amount and accordingly they shall be discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.
23. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the same is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated period of time, they serve the sentence as awarded in case of default of payment of fine so awarded by taking all necessary measures as per 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 736, 802 & 820 of 2005 the provisions of law.
24. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as above.
25. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with the Lower Court Records to do needful and compliance in this regard.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 16.08.2022/NAFR MM/-