Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 475 (JHR)

Md. Fahim v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2001 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner on 31.03.2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 1548 of 2000 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 100/ - has been affirmed. 3. The First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that a raid was conducted by the Police in connection Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 298 of 2000. It is alleged when the Police party reached near Washeypur Noori Masjid, the petitioner was trying to flee away but he was apprehended and from his possession a pistol of 9 mm loaded with 10 cartridges were recovered from the waist of his full pant and in a handkerchief 14 cartridges were found tied and kept in one of his full pant pockets. Based on the aforesaid allegations G.R. Case No. 1548 of 2000 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the Police leading to taking of cognizance. The trial Court on consideration of the materials available on record had been pleased to convict the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 4. The petitioner had preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2001 which was however dismissed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on 30.04.2001. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 is the informant who has proved the formal F.I.R. the written report as well as the seizure list. This witness has specifically stated that a raid was conducted in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 298 of 2000 in which the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession fire arms as well as cartridges were recovered. PW-2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who has proved the Experts report as well as the sanction order granted by the Deputy Commissioner which has been marked as Exhibit-5. PW-2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who has proved the Experts report as well as the sanction order granted by the Deputy Commissioner which has been marked as Exhibit-5. This witness has reiterated what has been stated by PW-1. PW-3 is another Police Officer and is also a member of the raiding party who has also stated in likewise term as has been stated by PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 (Jyotish Khalko) the Sergeant Major who has submitted expert report which has been marked as Exhibit-4. This witness after conducting the test had found 23 cartridges effective out of the 24 cartridges seized. PW-5 is the seizure list witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution and so has PW-6 who is also a seizure list witness. PW-7 (Md. Sakil Afzal) has not supported the prosecution case and therefore this witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-8 (Baidyanath Sharma) is the Investigating Officer of the case who had stated about the arrest of the accused, the recovery made from his possession and the details about the place of occurrence. This witness after conducting the investigation had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The prosecution case therefore hinges upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 who are all members of the raiding party and who had apprehended the petitioner with arms and ammunition. The recovery of arms and ammunition have been sufficiently corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW-8) as well as by the Sergeant Major (PW-4). The learned trial Court therefore having found consistent evidence on record to convict the petitioner had accordingly convicted and sentencing him. The learned appellate Court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and as affirmed in appeal does not merit any interference and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Application dismissed.