Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1334 (JHR)

Mukut Anjalo v. State of Jharkhand

2019-07-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. H. P. Singh, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 01.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2007 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Latehar in Barwadih P. S. Case No. 49 of 2005 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 25 (1-b) (a) and 35 of the Arms Act has been affirmed by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that in course of patrolling, the police party had raided the house of the petitioner and one Bharathua loaded gun kept under the bed of the petitioner was recovered. No documents could be produced and the Bharathua gun was seized in presence of the witnesses. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Barwadih P. S. Case No. 49 of 2005 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted leading to taking of cognizance. Charge was framed under Section 25 (1-b) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Both the accused had preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2007 in which the accused no. 2 namely Mukesh Anjalo was acquitted whereas the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was modified from a period of 3 years R.I. to one year R.I. 4. In course of trial, 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. P.W. 1 – Rajesh Kumar Dey has supported the date, time and place of occurrence. He has identified both the accused in court. This witness had surrounded the house of the petitioner along with other police personnel. He however has stated that he has not gone inside the house. 6. P.W. 2 – Nand Lal Sah has also supported the date, time and place of occurrence and has identified both the accused in dock. 7. P.W. 3 – Ilkan Kachhap had also identified both the accused at dock. He has stated that at the time of seizure he was not inside the house. 8. P.W. 4 – Ashok Prasad had identified both the accused persons in dock. 7. P.W. 3 – Ilkan Kachhap had also identified both the accused at dock. He has stated that at the time of seizure he was not inside the house. 8. P.W. 4 – Ashok Prasad had identified both the accused persons in dock. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was not present in the house when the accused were apprehended. 9. P.W. 5 – Parmeshwar Thakur had identified the petitioner, but failed to identify the other accused. This witness has also stated that he had not gone inside the house. 10. P.W. 6 – Md. Ibrar Ahmad is the Investigating Officer who had stated that after taking over charge of the investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Lukumkhanr in the house of the petitioner and the co-accused. He has described the house as having 3 rooms and there were forest all around. This witness had taken the statement of the witnesses and had obtained the report from Sergeant Major as well as the sanction order from the Deputy Commissioner. After conclusion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. 11. P.W. 7 – Birendra Kumar Pandey had stated that he had arrested both the accused on the place of occurrence itself. This witness had prepared the seizure list and had also identified both the accused in the dock. In cross-examination, he had stated that he had got the house surrounded and entered into the house of the petitioner with 2-3 officers, some members of public and some police officials and made the recovery. 12. P.W. 8 – Tarkeshwar Vidhyarthi had stated that both the accused have been caught from inside the house. He had stated that he had taken position at the back of the house. 13. P.W. 9 – Janeshwar Prasad Yadav had produced from the Malkhana the Bharathua gun which was marked as material Exhibit 1. 14. P.W. 10 – Kuldeep Singh is a seizure list witness who has not supported the factum of seizure. The incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he had denied the recovery made from his possession. 15. From a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that save and except P.W. 10, all the witnesses have basically supported the occurrence. The incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he had denied the recovery made from his possession. 15. From a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that save and except P.W. 10, all the witnesses have basically supported the occurrence. Most of the witnesses had taken part in the raid and had surrounded the house of the petitioner and the informant and others had entered into the house and seized a loaded Bharathua gun from under the bed of the petitioner. P.W. 7 – Birendra Kumar Pandey, the informant has categorically stated about the recovery of Bharathua gun from under the bed of the petitioner. Most of the witnesses have identified the petitioner in the dock also. The fire arm which was seized from inside the bed of the petitioner was found to be effective as per the report of the Sergeant Major which has been marked as Exhibit 5. The sanction order of the Deputy Commissioner has also been exhibited as Exhibit 6. The recovery of the gun therefore has been proved beyond doubt and the same was in a workable condition as could be seen from Exhibit 5. 16. In such circumstances, therefore the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offences under Sections 25(1-b) (a) and 35 of the Arms Act. The same is hereby sustained. 17. So far as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 2005 and has also remained in custody for a total period of 10 months out of a maximum sentence of one year R.I. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by him in custody. 18. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.