Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 95 (PAT)

Jai Prakash, Chamar v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-21

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. This is an appeal from jail. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31-1-1989 at about 3 p.m. a raiding party went to Village Kutkuri within Rafiganj police station for apprehending appellant Jai Prakash Chamar of the said village as he was involved in a few cases of murder, dacoity and extremists activities in the area and was avoiding arrest. The raiding party consisting of 42 Security men of the 95 Batalian of Border Security Force and Platoon Commander proceeded to the house . It has been further alleged that when the Police Officers and members of the Border Security Force were at some distance from the house of the appellant, Jai Prakash Chamar, two persons were seen fleeing towards north west after scaling over the compound wall of his house and one person fled away towards east. The persons fleeing away towards north west were chased and overpowered in a field situated at a distance of about 1 km. It has been further alleged that A.S.I. caught hold of appellant Jai Prakash Chamar while one member of the Border Security Force overpowered the other accused who disclosed his identity as Sheo Prasad Rawani . From the possession of appellant Jai Praksh Chamar a country made sten-gun, a belt containing 19 live and one used cartridges and a bag containing certain literature including the literature of M.C.C. were recovered. These articles were seized and a seizure list was prepared. Thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged. The police started investigation and after completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his enemy. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 9 witnesses. PW 1 is Mojibur Rahman. He is a formal witness. PW 2 is Ram Singhashan Singh. PW 3 is Bikramaditya Shukla. PW 4 is S.M.S. Hashmi. PW 5 is Timal alias Tibal Sah. PW 6 is Tojban Uraon. PW 7 is Arun Kumar Sinha. PW 8 is Risheshwar Dayal. PW 1 is Mojibur Rahman. He is a formal witness. PW 2 is Ram Singhashan Singh. PW 3 is Bikramaditya Shukla. PW 4 is S.M.S. Hashmi. PW 5 is Timal alias Tibal Sah. PW 6 is Tojban Uraon. PW 7 is Arun Kumar Sinha. PW 8 is Risheshwar Dayal. PW 9, Prem Chandra Mishra, is the I.O. 5. PW 4, S.M.S. Hashmi, the informant of this case has fully supported the cases of the prosecution. According to him he was informed by the local Superintendent of Police that notorious absconding criminal Jai Prakash Chamar was reported to have arrived at his house and, therefore, he was instructed to apprehend him. He has further stated that he organised a raiding party consisting of the Police Officers of Rafiganj police station and Border Security Force personnel and reached village Kitkuri at about 3 p.m. and surrounded the village. He himself proceeded towards the house of appellant Jai Prakash Chamar along with the police officers and 9 security men of the Border Security Force. He has further stated that when they reached near the house of appellant three persons emerged out of that house. One fled towards east, while two fled away towards north west after scaling over the northern compound wall of the house. They were chased. One of them who was subsequently identified as appellant was carrying a country made sten gun in his hand. He has further stated that both the men including the appellant Jai Prakash Chamar who were fleeing away towards north west were overpowered by A.S.I. and Border Security Force. He has further stated that from the possession of the appellant Jai Prakash Chamar a bag containing a belt of cartridges and some extremist literature was also recovered. The belt contained 19 line and one used cartridges of 7.62 bore meant for used in self loading rifles. The appellant did not produce any licence for possessing the said arms and ammunition. They were seized and a seizure list was prepared. A copy of the seizure list was given to appellant Jai Prakash Chamar who put his signature on it and thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged. 6. Pws 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have also supported the version of PW 4 the informant. 7. They were seized and a seizure list was prepared. A copy of the seizure list was given to appellant Jai Prakash Chamar who put his signature on it and thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged. 6. Pws 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have also supported the version of PW 4 the informant. 7. PW 9 the I.O. of this case has stated that he took up the charge of investigation from PW 8 on 7-4-1989 and submitted charge sheet after procuring the sanction order of the District Magistrate of Aurangabad for prosecuting the accused persons under the provisions of the Arms Act . He neither visited the place of the arrest, nor did he examaine any of the witnesses. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there was no valid sanction and the District Magistrate without applying his mind accorded the sanction. He has further submitted that since the alleged arms and ammunition were not sent for examination to the Fire Arms Expert and since no such opinion was available, the conviction of appellants under Sec. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. He has further submitted that there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and they are not reliable. 9. The submission of the learned counsel that the sanction was not valid but PW 1, Assistant of law section of the Collectorate, Aurangabad has stated that sanction order was dictated by the District Magistrate after appreciation of facts in the file. As such sanction was very much valid. So far the submission of the learned counsel for not sending the alleged arms to the expert is concerned, PW 6 the Sargeant Major, Aurangabad has stated that he has examined the alleged arms and found it in working condition and for that he issued report which is Ext. 5. So far the contradictions in the deposition are concerend, those contradictions are not major and are bound to occur. 10. From the deposition of the witnesses it is apparent that the appellant was carrying a country made sten gun and a belt containing 19 live cartridges and one used cartridge were recovered from his possession. As such the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant u/s. 25(1?A) of the Arms Act. 10. From the deposition of the witnesses it is apparent that the appellant was carrying a country made sten gun and a belt containing 19 live cartridges and one used cartridge were recovered from his possession. As such the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant u/s. 25(1?A) of the Arms Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant passed by the Court below. 11. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and this appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.