Patna High Court
Arvind Yadav @ Raju Da vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2013
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.51 of 2011
===========================================================
1. Arvind Yadav @ Raju Da S/O Late Damodar Yadav Resident Of Village-
Yogiatilha, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 21-08-2013 The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence under section 412 of the I.P.C. and sections 25 (1-B) A and 26 (1) of the Arms Act and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and five years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively for the offences aforesaid and in default one year, three months and six months for the offences as stated above. However, all the sentences were to run concurrently as awarded by 5th Additional Sessions Judge- F.T.C. Banka in Sessions Trial No. 897 of 2009, Trial No. 197 of 2010 arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No. 180 of 2007, G.R. No. 1816 of 2007. Three co-accused facing trial by the same judgment have been acquitted.
2. At the out set it is relevant to mentioned here that only on consideration that appellant who is in custody since initiation of the case on 23 rd November, 2007 consequently has served detention for a period about quarter less than six years. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant chosen not to challenge conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under the provisions of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 2 Arms Act as he has already detained for more than a period awarded including in default of payment of fine and confined his submissions against conviction for the offences under section 412 of the Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in short, as revealed from Ext. 8, self recorded statement of P.W.5 Sanjoy Kumar dated 23.11.2007 recorded in the house of co-accused Kapildeo Yadav (since acquitted) at 15.10 hours is that, on direction of Superintendent of Police, Banka a raiding party was organized to intercept the appellants said to be extremists and as per information coming from Jashidih with co-accused by specific Marshall Royal Vehicle No. J.H- 15A- 8112. The police party came to the police station assembled and when noticed vehicle came they intercepted all the four accused persons including the appellant and from their possession cellular phones and SIMS etc. were recovered. Seizure list etc. were prepared and on extra judicial confession of the appellants from a different place four police rifles and ten cartridges were recovered from a lonely place after digging earth kept protected in a cloth. The arms and ammunitions were said to be looted from Anandpur O.P. Jhajha Rail Police Station. From the house of co-accused Kapildeo Yadav also recovered one 9 MM pistol and accordingly seizure list etc. were prepared in presence of independent witnesses and after completing investigation charge sheet was submitted and all the four accused persons faced trial and ultimately remaining three were acquitted but the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner afore-stated on a consideration of testimony of six prosecution witnesses besides following documentary evidence and material exhibits:-
Ext. 1- Signature of Umesh Kumar on report of seized Arms and cartridge.
Ext. 2- Seizure list.
Ext. 2/1- Signature of Kapildeo Yadav on seizure list. Ext. 3- Confessional statement of Arbind Yadav. Ext. 4- Confessional statement of Kapildeo Yadav. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 3 Ext. 5- Seizure list of Rifle.
Ext. 6- Seizure list of Pistol 9 M.M. Mat. Ext. I- Rifle.
Mat. Ext. II- Do.
Mat. Ext. III- Do.
Mat. Ext. IV- Do.
Mat. Exts. V to V/9- Cartridges (1 to 10). Mat. Ext. VI- Pistol of 9 M.M. Mat. Ext. VII- Mobile.
Mat. Ext. VII/1- Mobile.
Mat. Ext. VII/2- Mobile.
Mat. Ext. VIII- SIM.
Mat. Ext. VIII/1- SIM.
Mat. Ext. IX- Cloth.
Ext. 7- Formal F.I.R.
Ext. 8- Self statement.
Ext. 9- Forwarding note of Fardbeyan.
Ext. 10- JAPTA PRADARSHO KO JACH KARANE HETU DIYE AWEDAN PATRA KI KARBAN PRATI PAR LIKHABAT AWAM HASTAKSHAR KA PAHCHAN.
Ext. 11- Sanction report.
4. It is undisputed that inspite of alleged confessional statement of the appellant regarding arms and ammunitions recovered being looted articles from two particular police stations, prosecution has not produced even a chit of paper including F.I.R. to show any such occurrence had ever taken place or the articles so recovered were related with such police stations or occurrence of dacoity or theft etc. There is no explanation for such non production of materials.
5. P.W. 1 Jagjiwan Ram, A.S.I. police, one of the members of the raiding party stated about organization of raiding team and apprehension of accused persons including the appellant, but in examination-in-chief itself in para- 4 he is not said anything on the point of any extra judicial confession of the appellant or recovery of arms and ammunitions. P.W.2. Umesh Kumar, Sergeant Major, who was examined the alleged recovered arms and ammunitions during test found the same effective and proved his report Ext.1. P.W.3 Nandji Yadav one of members of the police team and further recovery of arms and ammunitions Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 4 but he in examination-in-chief in para- 3 itself was not sure about second raid (recovery of pistol from the house of acquitted accused Kapildeo Yadav). In para- 11 he admits there was none else than the police personnel at the time of confessional statement. P.W.4 Sarojendra Kumar, S.I. Police, one of members of the raiding team stated about the prosecution case, but not sure about the independent witnesses who have also not been examined. P.W.5 is the Informant himself stated the prosecution version and proved Exts. 2 to 8 and material Exts. I to IX. In para-26 (Two) he admits copies of the seizure list not served upon the appellant and in para-27 he admits at the time of recovery of rifles and cartridges good number of villagers were available but he is unable to name any one. P.W.6 Ram Babu Ram, the Investigating Officer proved Ext. 9 and in para-8 he said about rifles and cartridges recovered at the instance of the appellant were connected with Anandpur O.P. and in para-7 he has stated about criminal antecedents of the appellant including Anandpur O.P. P.S. Case No. 82 of 2005 and Jhajha Rail P.S. Case No. 9 of 2005, but both such information in the examination-in-chief itself are based on the alleged confession of the appellant. He during entire investigation took no care to examine and produce any of the documents indicating any details of such cases including arms and ammunitions to establish their connection with the recovered one.
6. It is true that no seizure list witnesses have been examined, but in the instant case especially in view of unchallenged conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Arms Act their non examination is not fatal the prosecution. Consequently, decision of this Court in the case of "Kailash Sah & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar" reported in 2009 (3) B.L.J. 109 is not applicable.
7. In order to establish commission of any offence under section 412 of the I.P.C. which reads as such:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 5 "Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
It is highly essential to show articles were not only stolen in connection with dacoity, but the person involved must also have any knowledge or reason to believe of the same being transferred in commission of dacoity. And in the instant case prosecution appears placing its case only on alleged confession of the appellant, but undisputedly it is said to have taken place before police except recovery part not admissible.
8. The Apex Court in the case of " Aghnoo Nagesisa Vs. State of Bihar" reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 has held as such:-
13. "Now, a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-
confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession."
14. "If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as S.24, S. 25 and S. 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section under as S. 27 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 6 Evidence Act. Little substance and content would be left in Ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admission of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted."
9. Learned counsel representing the appellant has further placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Achyut Das & Anr Vs. State of Assam" reported in (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 387, wherein in paragraph-3 it has been held as such:-
"The only question that falls for consideration is whether an offence punishable under Section 412 is squarely made out? The dacoity which took place on the intervening night of 29th and 30th July, 1979 is not in doubt. The stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the appellant during the investigation. Besides the evidence of the official witnesses there is evidence of P.W. 8, who stated that he purchased these articles from the appellants. The appellants could not give any explanation as to how they came into possession of the stolen property. But the question is whether it can be said that the appellants knew that those articles were stolen in dacoity? The prosecution has to prove such knowledge since that is an essential ingredient of Section 412 as compared to the ingredient of S. 411. In the instant case there is no material to come to the conclusion that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the articles were stolen in the course of the dacoity. Therefore the only presumption that can be drawn against them was that they knew that the articles were stolen in which case the offence made out would be one punishable under S. 411, I.P.C. Accordingly the conviction of the appellants under S. 412, I.P.C. and sentence of 1-1/2 years R.I. thereunder are set aside. Instead they are convicted under S. 411, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months' R.I. The sentence of fine with default clause, is however, confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed."
10. It is undisputed now, since entire exercise is confined for the offence under section 412 of the I.P.C. that fire arms and ammunitions were recovered on the confessional statement of the appellant. No explanation is offered by the appellant about possession of such articles which were undisputedly not belonging to the appellant nor in ordinary course may come in his control and such non explanation give rise to a presumption that the appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.51 of 2011 dt.21-08-2013 7 knew the same being stolen one, but there is absolutely nothing to establish its being in connection with any dacoity.
11. In that view of the matter, instead of section 412 of the I.P.C. offence under section 411 of the I.P.C. may attract as held by the Apex Court in the case of Achyut Das (Supra).
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 412 I.P.C. is converted into section 411 I.P.C. and as it appears he has already served maximum sentence provided for such offence, with simple modification in conviction as to conversion from section 412 to 411 I.P.C and sentence undergone, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Abhay/-