Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1410 (JHR)

Sulender Sahu @ Srikant v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-05

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This revision is directed against the order and judgment dated 19.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012, whereby the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 04.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. No. 510 of 2010, Trial No. 238 of 2012, corresponding to Kisko P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010, was upheld for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/26(1) of the Arms Act and sentence of two years under the both the offences were reduced and the petitioner was directed to under go R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees fine thousand) and in default thereof further to undergo S.I for one month and no separate sentence was passed under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case is that Kisko P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 was lodged on the basis of the self statement of the Officer-In-Charge of Kisko Police Station and it is stated that on confidential information, that a looted mobile of Kisko P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 was in possession of the accused-petitioner, Sulendra Sahu, accordingly a raid was conducted and a l mobile, country made pistol along with two .315 live cartridges were recovered from the box kept in the house of the petitioner-accused. The petitioner in his defence submitted that pistol and cartridges belonged to his brother-in-law. Police seized the said articles and charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/26(1) of the Arms Act. The petitioner faced the trial for the charges under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act. The trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner-accused guilty for the said offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate that the independent witnesses have not been examined and the procedure prescribed was not adhered to during search and seizure. That and alleged country made pistol and cartridges were not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. That there is no material evidence on record to establish the charges under the aforesaid offences, hence the judgment and conviction is fit to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 4. That and alleged country made pistol and cartridges were not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. That there is no material evidence on record to establish the charges under the aforesaid offences, hence the judgment and conviction is fit to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have discussed and appreciated the evidence. The P.W.-1, the informant's statement regarding the recovery and seizure of the country made pistol and two live cartridges from the box kept in the house of the house have been proved by the witnesses. That P.W.-3, the Sergeant Major had examined the country made pistol and live cartridges and found it to be effective and functional, which were marked as Ext.-I, II and II/1 and the expert's report has been marked as Ext.-4. That the sanction for prosecution (Ext.-5) accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga has been duly proved. It is argued that the judgment and conviction is in accordance to law. 5. Heard. On perusal of the impugned judgment and materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner-accused has taken defence that the arms were not recovered from his conscious possession, but it is evident that the said arms were kept in a box in his house. The evidence adduced shows the seizure and recovery from the said box. The country made pistol was examined by the Sergeant Major and the ballistic report, i.e., Ext.-4, it is stated that the country made pistol is effective and functional. Sanction has been accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, which is Ext.-5. Both the trial court and the appellate court have discussed the evidence in threadbare details and no major contradictions have been elicited in the testimony of the witnesses namely, Investigating Officer, i.e., P.W.-4 and P.W.-2 the informant. The seizure of country made pistol from the house, as notice has not been controverted. In view of the evidence on record, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and conviction warranting any interference by this Court. 6. The seizure of country made pistol from the house, as notice has not been controverted. In view of the evidence on record, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and conviction warranting any interference by this Court. 6. However, considering the fact that the case is of the year 2010 and the petitioner-accused has faced the mental agony and rigorous of trial for nearly five years, and he has remained in custody for more then ten months, hence, it would be just and proper to modify the sentence of imprisonment of one year to the period already undergone in custody and the petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred), failing which, he shall further undergo imprisonment of one month. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, subject to deposit of fine amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) in the court below. 8. With the said modification of sentence and the amount of fine, the judgment and order of conviction is, hereby, affirmed.