Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 196 (PAT)

Ajaya Kumar Sah v. State Of Bihar

2001-03-01

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This Revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.98, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 1993/26/94; by which the learned court below has confirmed the conviction and sentence, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Case no. 1212/88 Tr. No. 88 of 1993. 2. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 25 (1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under both the counts. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 7.7.88, the informant Syed Wasimul Haque, S.I. was returning after executing the process of Kurki along with armed home guard and he saw two persons in suspicious conditions. It has been stated that they were returning in Shri Ram Press Lane from Marwari Mohalla. The Informant stopped them. Having seen them, the two persons started fleeing away. Thereafter in order to catch hold them, the informant with the police party started chasing and ultimately both the accused persons were apprehended. On enquiry one of the accused person disclosed his name as Mahendra Poddar of Village Bargibhi, P.S. Balia, District Begusarai and the other accused disclosed his name as Ajay Kumar Sah of Village Jamalpur Ramnagar Morcha P.S. Muffasil, District Munger. In the mean time, the villagers came there. The informant made a search of the accused persons, who were arrested in presence of Anil Kumar Sah and Ramchandra Thakur. The informant recovered one contry made pistol from the right side of full pant of the accused Mahendra Poddar without cartridge and a country made revolver from the left side of the full pant near his waist. He also recovered one country made revolver from the left side of his waist from other accused namely Ajay Kumar Sah with five cartridges of 3 x 80, The informant prepared seizure list in presence of both the witnesses, who signed on the seizure list. The informant enquired from both the accused persons Mahendra Poddar and Ajay Kumar Sah regarding the licence, but they failed to produce any licence with regard to their guns. Thereafter the statement of the informant was recorded and a formal F.I.R. was instituted under Section 25A and 26 of the Arms Act. The informant enquired from both the accused persons Mahendra Poddar and Ajay Kumar Sah regarding the licence, but they failed to produce any licence with regard to their guns. Thereafter the statement of the informant was recorded and a formal F.I.R. was instituted under Section 25A and 26 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against both the accused persons. Cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined altogether six witnesses and one court witness was examined P.W. 1 is Sayed Wasmul Haque, the informant himself, P.W. 2 is Ramagya Rai, P.W. 3 is Ramchandra Thakur, P.W. A is Anil Kumar Sah, P.W. 5 Janam Ram, P.W. 6 is Ramji Prasad who is a formal witness and P.W. 7 is Tribhuwan Prasad Singh. 5. This revision petition has been admitted on the question of sentence only. Perused the document as well as the judgment impugned of both the courts below. The evidence of the witnesses has been elaborately discussed by both the courts below and this Court will not re-appraise the same as an appellate authority. There is nothing to show that any irregularity or illegality has been committed by the courts below, which has vitiated the judgment on account of non consideration of evidence and the same has caused miscarriage of justice. I do not find any error in the judgment impugned, which may warrant any interference by this Court. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1988 i.e. more than a decade and the petitioner has remained in jail for some time. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the petitioner. 6. Keeping view of the submissions raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place in the year 1988 i.e. about 13 years ago and the petitioner has been sufficiently punished and harassed during the prolonged litigation lasting for about 13 years. 6. Keeping view of the submissions raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place in the year 1988 i.e. about 13 years ago and the petitioner has been sufficiently punished and harassed during the prolonged litigation lasting for about 13 years. In my view, the ends of justice will be made, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period he has already gone in jail with a fine of Rs.500/- to be deposited by this petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In default, the substantive sentence passed by the court below shall be automatically restored. The amount of fine, if realised shall be deposited in the State exchequer. 7. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, this revision petition is dismissed.