Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 745 (JHR)

Himansu Shekhar Singh v. State of Bihar

2015-07-03

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
Order This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.1999 passed by the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.121 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further term of R.I. for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.1991 at about 4 a.m. in the morning, the accused persons Yudhisthir Rai, Damodar Rai, Nakul Rai, Basuki Rai, Ghan Shyam Pd. Rai and Naval Singh entered into the house of the informant and by putting him under the threat of life, took away double barrel gun as well as 28 live cartridges and also some jewelries as well as the cash. Thereupon the informant (P.W.7) submitted a written report to that effect, upon which Madhupur P.S. Case No.115 of 1991 was registered under Sections 452, 307, 380, and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the aforesaid persons. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the aforesaid named accused persons under Sections 452, 307, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent to that, this appellant was arrested as he was found in possession of the gun which had been looted from the house of the informant. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, this appellant and the accused persons named above, were put to trial whereby, the appellant was charged under Section 411 I.P.C. whereas other accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Of them P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were on the point of dacoity being committed in the house. Apart from them, one Rajib Singh, the then Officer-in-charge of Gande Police Station was examined who did testify that on 13.08.1993 when he had raided the house of this appellant, a double barrel gun bearing No.7506240 was recovered from the possession of the appellant and then it was seized under seizure-list (Ext.3). The gun recovered was having same number which had been looted away number of which had been given in the written report. The gun recovered was having same number which had been looted away number of which had been given in the written report. The trial court by disbelieving the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 did hold that the other accused persons have falsely been implicated as they had long drawn litigation with the informant and his family members and thereby, all the other accused persons were acquitted. However, this appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the I.P.C. as the clinching evidence was there to establish that this appellant had been found in possession of a looted gun belonging to the informant and thereby, the trial court recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as aforesaid. 5. Being aggrieved with that, this appeal has been preferred. 6. On perusal of the record, I do find that according to Rajib Singh, the then Officer-in-Charge who when raided the house of this appellant, found the appellant in possession of the gun which was recovered and was seized under seizure-list (Ext.3). The said gun was found to have been looted from the house of the informant as it was having same number which gets reflected from Ext.3, as that of the gun looted number of which had been given in the Written report and thereby, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant had been arrested in the year 1993 and had been put to trial which got concluded on 26.02.1999 and since then the appeal is pending, the appellant can be said to have faced rigour of trial for such a long period and thereby, ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone. 8. Thus, with the modification in the order of sentence, this appeal stands partly allowed.