Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 346 (JHR)

Manna Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Since both these applications arise out of the common judgment dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned Ist Additional, Sessions Judge, Palamu, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Palamu in connection with Criminal Appeal No.06 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No.08 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Ist Additional, Sessions Judge, Palamu in G.R .Case No.188 of 1988 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 25(a) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment of three years has been dismissed. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the various contradictions appeared in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It has been stated that although, the petitioners were said to have been inside the train but no independent witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the seized articles were never produced. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer was also the member of the raiding party for which the defence has greatly been prejudice. P.W-5 Sheo Pukar Prasad who is the Malkhana Incharge has not stated about the occurrence or his presence in the place of occurrence. Investigating officer P.W-8 has stated that there was no vacant seat in the bogey. It has, therefore, been stated that the evidence of the informant P.W-2 if seen in the backdrop of the evidence of other witnesses would definitely lead to acquittal of the petitioners. 5. In the alternative an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction awarded to the petitioner the sentence imposed be modified accordingly. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. It appears from the written report of P.W-2 Ram Dayal Singh that a confidential information was received that some criminals of Meral were going towards Dehri side along with arms. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. It appears from the written report of P.W-2 Ram Dayal Singh that a confidential information was received that some criminals of Meral were going towards Dehri side along with arms. After organizing the raiding party, Barwadih Faizabad passenger train was checked up in Garhwa railway station. In course of checking, two persons were found gossiping. On suspicion they were searched by the police party thereafter they had tried to run away but they were arrested. From the possession of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2001, one double barrel loaded country made pistol with two cartridges and one live .315 bore cartridges was recovered whereas from the possession of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2001 one single barrel country made pistol loaded with cartridges and one cartridges of .315 was recovered. 8. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R.P.S Case No.1 of 1988 was instituted under sections 25-1(B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act in which police had submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken the trial proceeded. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. P.W-2 Ram Dayal Singh is the informant of the case and also the member of the raiding party who had stated about the search made upon the petitioners, since they were gossiping together surreptitiously and subsequently recovery of arms and ammunitions were effected. This witness is consistent with respect to the recovery of arms and ammunitions from the possession of the petitioner. P.W-7 Madan Mohan Tiwary is also the members of the raiding party and he has also supported about the recovery of pistol and cartridges from the possession of the petitioners who were sitting in bogey no. NE 9145 in the passenger train. P.W-5 Sheo Pukar Prasad is the Malkhana Incharge who has produced the material exhibit i.e. country made pistol and live cartridges. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners about this witness being not aware of the occurrence cannot dilute the prosecution case. P.W-3 Kanhaiya Prasad is the seizure-list witness. He has only proved his signature upon the seizure-list. P.W-5 Sheo Pukar Prasad is the Malkhana Incharge who has produced the material exhibit i.e. country made pistol and live cartridges. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners about this witness being not aware of the occurrence cannot dilute the prosecution case. P.W-3 Kanhaiya Prasad is the seizure-list witness. He has only proved his signature upon the seizure-list. P.W-8 Sheo Nandan Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case who had taken the statement of the witnesses including the independent witness and subsequent to the same the charge-sheet was submitted by him. The evidence of the raiding party being P.W-2 and P.W-7 are consistent with respect to the raid conducted in the bogey of Barwadih Faizabad passenger train and the apprehension of two petitioners and recovery from their possession of various arms and ammunitions. The defence has not been able to discard the testimony of P.W-2 and P.W-7. The incriminating articles were also produced from the court Malkhana which also substantiate the statements of P.W-2 and P.W-7. Even though, some minor discrepancy has crept up with respect to the evidence of some of the witnesses but the same by itself cannot dilute the prosecution case or prove the innocence of the petitioners. 9. Learned trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 25A/26 of the Arms Act and sentenced them accordingly. 10. Learned appellate court has properly appreciated the materials available on record before affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a fervent plea on the period of custody undergone by the petitioners and the long pendency of the case but the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners on being apprehended with arms and ammunitions from the passenger train does not entitle any reduction in the period of sentence imposed upon them. 11. In such view of the matter, therefore, no reason exists for interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and, accordingly, having found no merit in these applications, the same are hereby dismissed.