Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State on 15 February, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Revision No. 546 of 2000
In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure
---
Ashok Kumar Gupta son of late Ambika Prasad Gupta
resident of Village Bhatdiha, PS Godda (T), District Godda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Awnish Shankar, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
By Court: Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.06.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class in G. R. No. 283 of 1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 456 of the I.P.C. has been affirmed, but the sentence awarded to the petitioner has been modified by reducing the same from R.I. for 1 year to R.I. for 6 months.
3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some major discrepancies with respect to the statement of the witnesses as to who had snatched the pistol from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that although it is stated that the P.W. 6 - Ramdeo Bhagat had over powered and snatched the pistol from the possession of the petitioner, but the said statement has been controverted in view of the statement of P.W. 4. He further submits that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified in view of the fact that out of the maximum period of 6 months R.I., the petitioner has remained in custody for 2 months and 20 days.
-2-4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer.
5. It appears that on the night of 24.04.1996 when P.W. 6 was about to sleep, he heard some alarm coming from house of P.W. 4. When P.W. 6 reached the house of P.W. 4, he found the petitioner armed with countrymade pistol, when he was overpowered by the informant and other persons. Subsequently it was disclosed by P.W. 4 that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with his daughter-in- law. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 283 of 1996 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act and Section 456 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year on both the counts which were to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 1999 which however was dismissed on 24.06.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses including P.W. 6 - Ramdeo Bhagat. It appears that there are there are several eye-witnesses to the occurrence such as, P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6, who have supported the fact of recovery of countrymade pistol from the possession of the petitioner. P.W. 2 - Babita Devi who is the daughter-in-law of the P.W. 4 has also stated that she came out on alarm of Hari Bhagat and saw the petitioner surrounded by other persons and that a pistol was also found from the possession of the petitioner. There thus appears to be consistent evident on record with respect to recovery of a fire arm from the possession of the petitioner. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a discrepancy with respect to fact who had snatched the pistol, but the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts with respect to the possession of pistol and its recovery from the petitioner subsequently by the witnesses.
7. Such circumstances do not entitle the petitioner reversal of judgment of conviction and its affirmation in appeal. However, as regards sentence is concerned which has been awarded to the petitioner, it appears that out of maximum sentence of 6 months R.I., petitioner has already remained in custody for 2 months and 20 days. The petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since 1996. The aforesaid scenario would definitely invite modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioner.
-3-8. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone.
9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 15th day of February, 2017 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.2