Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1177 (JHR)

Gulab Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. (CAV) - Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.3.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 93 of 2001, whereby and where-under judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 3230 of 1995, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that when the informant and other police officers were crossing the village, one person began fleeing away but he was apprehended and from his possession one country made pistol along with two cartridges were recovered. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No. 3230 of 1995 was instituted. 4. After investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after framing of charge, trial proceeded. In course of trial, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. P.W-1-Md. Usman is a formal witness who had proved the FIR marked as Ext-1. 6. P.W-2-Darothi Lakra is also a formal witness who had proved the sanction report. 7. P.W-3-Yaswant Sharan has stated that while he was coming back after investigation into Khelari P.S. Case No. 76 of 1995 one person was seen running away on seeing the police jeep and on being apprehended one loaded country made pistol was recovered from his possession. 8. P.W-4-Purushottam Singh is also a police personnel, who has stated that he was with P.W-3 at the time of chasing the petitioner and recovery of fire arm was also made in his presence. 9. P.W-5-Nageshwar Ram was a constable who was also in the police party and recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner. 10. P.W-6-Kailash Ram was also a constable who had stated about being a witness to the seizure of a country made pistol from the possession of the petitioner. Similar is the statement of P.W-7-Gokul Tiwary. 11. P.W-8-Silbaunush Bakhla was a surgeont major who had examined the seized pistol and two live cartridges and found them in an effective condition. This witness had proved his test report marked as Ext-6. 12. P.W-9-Gupteshwar Singh was a constable who had produced the seized fire arm and two cartridges. 13. Similar is the statement of P.W-7-Gokul Tiwary. 11. P.W-8-Silbaunush Bakhla was a surgeont major who had examined the seized pistol and two live cartridges and found them in an effective condition. This witness had proved his test report marked as Ext-6. 12. P.W-9-Gupteshwar Singh was a constable who had produced the seized fire arm and two cartridges. 13. Defence had examined as many as two witnesses namely D.W-1-Chaturgun Bhuinya and D.W-2-Nageshwar Mahto. Both of them have stated that they cannot recollect as to whether any arms were recovered from the petitioner or not. 14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and all the witnesses so examined are of the police department. Learned counsel further submits that although the said recovery is of a country made pistol but P.Ws, 4, 6 and 7 have stated about recovery of a country made revolver. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure list witnesses namely D.W-1 and D.W-2 had not supported the seizure. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case for more than two decades and have also remained in custody for a period of eight months. It has further been submitted that the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner in such circumstances be modified. 15. It appears that consistent evidence has been put forward by the prosecution in the form of P.Ws-3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. All these police personnel''s were present when the fire arm was recovered from the possession of the petitioner after he was chased by the police personnel''s. Seized fire arm was examined by the P.W-6 and it was found to be in an effective condition. Merely because some of the witnesses have said with respect to recovery of a country made revolver and not pistol but such minor discrepancy will not dilute the prosecution case in the backdrop of overwhelming evidence against the petitioner of illegally possessing the fire arm and being caught red handed with such fire arm. Sanction report of the District Magistrate has also been brought on record and which has been proved by the P.W-2. Sanction report of the District Magistrate has also been brought on record and which has been proved by the P.W-2. Circumstances, narrated above, do justify the conviction for the offence under section 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and therefore the conviction of the petitioner is sustained. 16. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1995 and has also remained in custody for a period of eight months. In such circumstances, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, is modified to the period already undergone. 17. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.