Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 483 (JHR)

Arjun Singh Munda v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-13

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT: D.K. Sinha, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2008, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2008 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti against the petitioner was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Petitioner was held guilty by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti for the charge under Sections 25(1-b) a/ 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the maximum period of 2 ½ years and fine of Rs.2000/-with default stipulation on each count. However, sentence awarded to the petitioner was modified in appeal and the petitioner was instead, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment only for 1 ½ years for his conviction on each count and fine amount imposed by the Trial Court was set aside. 3. Prosecution story in short was that on 31.12.2003, pursuant to the confidential information received that some extremists had assembled in the house of the petitioner Arjun Singh Munda at his village Harwagarh with arms and ammunitions, the officer-in-charge of Tamar Police Station after making necessary entry in the Station Diary vide No. 497 of 2003 conveyed the massage to the senior police officials and proceeded for verification of the information with the team of the police party. At the same time, under instruction, the police party of different police stations also co-ordinated and proceeded towards the village Harwagarh to find out the veracity of information. All entered into the village Harwagarh at about 4:00 p.m. by leaving their vehicles in the village Parsi Bazar Tand and surrounded the house of the petitioner Arjun Singh Munda where they found a man coming out from his house who tried to escape at the sight of the police party, but he was chased and caught hold. On interrogation, the person disclosed his name as Arjun Singh Munda who is the petitioner herein. His house was searched in presence of the witnesses and from his bedroom, one regular double barrel gun of 12 bore with its number 52902/10F was recovered, which was kept concealed under the heap of straw. Two live cartridges of 12 bore was found loaded in the gun. Besides, one windolia and six military caps were also recovered, to which seizure list was prepared for all the seized articles. Two live cartridges of 12 bore was found loaded in the gun. Besides, one windolia and six military caps were also recovered, to which seizure list was prepared for all the seized articles. On interrogation, petitioner Arjun Singh Munda admitted his guilt before the informant police officer that Jeevan Singh Munda, Kundan Pahan, Krishna Ahir, Santoshi Kumari, Manju Kumari and Deji Kumari along with 10-12 members of extremists organization had visited his house two months before and they had delivered the gun with cartridge which were allegedly recovered and other articles for its safe custody with the instruction that they would take back these items in future. No authority could be produced with respect to the possession of the fire arm and ammunitions by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that altogether five witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution for the alleged charge under Sections 25(1-b) A/26/35 of the Arms Act against the petitioner, but none of them could fully substantiate the charge. P.W.-2 Sonda Munda and P.W.-3 Amarnath though were presented on behalf of the prosecution as the witnesses of the seizure list but they did not support that any seizure of fire arm or ammunition or any other article was made in their presence. Petitioner was convicted on the basis of the statement of the P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who were the police officers and conviction of the petitioner could not have been made without corroboration of charge by the independent witnesses. Even DBBL gun and the cartridge, alleged to be seized from the possession of the petitioner, were never sent to the forensic science laboratory to ascertain as to whether it will effective in nature so as to prove the charge under Arms Act. 5. Finally, the learned counsel Mr. Nayak submitted that the petitioner was released from jail after he had served out entire period of his sentence and therefore, appropriate order may be passed. 6. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State-Opposite Party. 7. I have carefully gone through the statement of the P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. 6. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State-Opposite Party. 7. I have carefully gone through the statement of the P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. P.W.-3 Amarnath, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, admitted that on the date of alleged occurrence, he was posted at Tamar police station and on that day, Station Diary Entry No. 497 of 2003 was made at 17:30 hours on his statement. On 31.12.2003, he along with the police party proceeded to village Harwagarh under the leadership of the officer-in-charge of Tamar police station Pawan Oraon P.W.-4 and other police officers and raided the house of Arjun Singh Munda. During course of search of his house, one regular DBBL gun with two loaded cartridges, one windolia and six military caps were recovered, to which a seizure list was prepared in his pen and signature. He proved his statement recorded in his pen, which was the basis for registering FIR and the same was marked Ext.-3. Petitioner was apprehended and the copy of the seizure list was given to him after obtaining his signature, which was marked Ext. 1/2. He identified Arjun Singh Munda in the dock. In the cross-examination, the witness testified that he was the informant and had delivered his hand written statement, which was recorded outside the house of the petitioner Arjun Singh Munda and about 17:00 hours Arjun Singh Munda was apprehended. The place of occurrence was about 25 Km. from Tamar police station. He expressed his inability to disclose the boundary of the house of Arjun Singh Munda but stated that the house of the brother of Arjun Singh Munda was situated in the western side. Arjun Singh Munda was apprehended while he was running away from his house at the sight of the police party. P.W.-4 Pawan Oraon was the officer-in-charge of Tamar police station at the relevant time on 30.12.2003. He received secret information that the extremists/outlaws had assembled in the house of the petitioner Arjun Singh Munda to which he made entry in the Station Diary and informed the senior police officers. The police officers of the different police station with the police party coordinated and together raided the house of the petitioner on 31.12.2003 at village Harwagarh and spotted a person running away in suspicious condition from the house, who was apprehended on chase. The police officers of the different police station with the police party coordinated and together raided the house of the petitioner on 31.12.2003 at village Harwagarh and spotted a person running away in suspicious condition from the house, who was apprehended on chase. In the meantime, villagers also arrived there. The person apprehended disclosed his name as Arjun Singh Munda and thereafter, in course of search of his bedroom, one double barrel regular gun of 12 bore was recovered, kept concealed under the heap of straw. Two cartridges of 12 bore were found loaded in the said gun, besides, several articles, to which a seizure list was prepared. He proved the FIR and the sanctioned report obtained for the criminal prosecution of the petitioner under the Arms Act. He proved the report submitted by Sergeant Major of the police line in respect to the effectiveness of gun. P.W.-5 Shri Ramashray Singh, A.S.I. of Tamar police station had produced the material exhibits, which were kept in custody of Tamar police station, which were marked material exhibits. Other articles of the seizure list could not be produced as the charge of Malkhana was not made to the officer-in-charge absolutely. 8. I have further examined the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and he was confronted with the incriminating articles collected in course of his trial, to which his reply was only of his false implication in the instant case. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1-b) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years with fine of Rs. 2000/-on each count with default stipulation against which the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed however, with the modification in the sentence by reducing it to the extent of 1 ½ years on each count and the fine amount was set off as stated earlier, and to my view, for the discussions made hereinabove, the judgment of conviction and order of modified sentence does not call for interference. The petitioner has already been released after serving out his sentence. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned dated 12.8.2008, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2008 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti as such the same is affirmed. 9. There being no merit, this criminal revision is dismissed.