Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1156 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in connection with G.R. Case No. 556 of 1998 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 25(i)(b)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years has been affirmed. 3. The allegation has been levelled that a secret information was received that some miscreants who were planning to commit some crime had lodged themselves in room No. 16 of Meghdoot Lodge. It is alleged that the police got the main door opened by the owner of the lodge and five persons were apprehended and from each of the apprehended accused persons one loaded country-made pistol was recovered. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and, thereafter, trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. PW 1, Ramashish Tiwari, is the Sergeant Major who had examined all the seized arms and cartridges and found them to be effective. 6. PW 2, Madhu Kachhap, is the informant who had lodged the First Information Report on his self-statement. 7. PW 3, Md. Raja and PW 4, Amalendu Mishra, are the seizure list witnesses and since none of them had supported the prosecution case they were declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. PW 5, Umesh Singh, has stated that he was the member of the raiding party and when room No. 16 of Meghdoot Lodge was raided all the accused persons were apprehended with loaded country-made pistol recovered from each of them. 9. PW 6, Raju, was the Investigating Officer and one of the members of the raiding party. This witness apart from supporting the prosecution case had also proved the firearms and cartridges recovered from the possession of the accused. 10. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the seizure of the firearm has not been proved in view of the fact that PW 3 and PW 4 both have turned hostile. This witness apart from supporting the prosecution case had also proved the firearms and cartridges recovered from the possession of the accused. 10. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the seizure of the firearm has not been proved in view of the fact that PW 3 and PW 4 both have turned hostile. Learned counsel further submits that most of the witnesses are the members of the raiding party and their evidence cannot be believed. It has also been stated that the petitioners have remained in custody for a total period of about seventeen months. 11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 12. It appears from the evidence of PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6 that they have supported the prosecution case to the effect that a raid was conducted on receiving secret information in room No. 16 of Meghdoot Lodge and resultantly petitioners along with other were apprehended with loaded country-made pistols. The firearms were examined by the Sergeant Major (PW 1) who had found that the same were effective. The test report has also been exhibited by the prosecution and so has the sanction order. Nothing could be elicited from the witnesses to justify the non-involvement of the petitioners in committing the offence. 13. The circumstance enumerated above have rightly been considered by the learned trial Court while convicting the petitioners as also by the learned appellate Court in affirming the order of conviction. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment and conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court is, hereby, sustained. 14. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1998 and out of a maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years the petitioners in total has remained in custody for almost seventeen months. In view of the aforesaid the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. 15. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.