Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2048 (JHR)

Ashok Rai v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-17

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kr Mahtha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been charged under Section 412 of I.P.C. read with Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. This case has been registered on the self-statement of Sri A.K. Choudhary, Sub-Inspector, the then officer-in-charge of Chitra P.S., as Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.20 of 2003 at 18.20 hour on 08.02.2003 under Section 412 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B), 26 & 27 of the Arms Act. As per the FIR, informant has received information from Karon police station that dacoity was committed in S.B.I. Branch, Karon and dacoits had gone towards western and southern side. On receiving such information, informant alongwith other police officials had chased the dacoits and the appellant has been apprehended/arrested. The appellant has confessed his guilt and on search, 9 mm Pistol with magazine having 5 live cartridges was recovered from his waist. When he was asked to produce the document for possession of said pistol, he did not produce any document regarding the said pistol. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 412 of I.P.C. read with Sections 25, 26 & 27 of the Arms Act, cognizance was taken and charge had been framed under above sections. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses. P.W.1-Chandrakant Singh and P.W.2-Bhim Chandra Singh are the seizure list witnesses and police officials. P.W.-1 has supported the seizure list while P.W.-2 did not support the seizure list. P.W.3-Yogendra Singh (constable) and P.W.4-Umesh Singh (Constable) have arrested the appellant on the spot and they are the witnesses of arrest and recovery of the arms. P.W.5-Devendra Pd. Choudhary has given expert opinion regarding the pistol. P.W.-1 has supported the seizure list while P.W.-2 did not support the seizure list. P.W.3-Yogendra Singh (constable) and P.W.4-Umesh Singh (Constable) have arrested the appellant on the spot and they are the witnesses of arrest and recovery of the arms. P.W.5-Devendra Pd. Choudhary has given expert opinion regarding the pistol. P.W.6-Mithilesh Kumar Rai (Deputy Collector) has witnessed the arrest and the recovery of the arms. P.W.7-Arvind Kumar Choudhary is the informant and has supported the prosecution story. P.W.8-Shiv Prasad Mandal (Clerk in S.D.O. Office) has proved the signature of the Deputy Collector. P.W.9-Madan Pd. Singh (Investigating Officer) has also supported the incident and recovery of the arms. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all the witnesses are officials and no independent witness has been examined in the case. One of the seizure list witness has not supported the seizure list. Further it has been argued that the incident is of the year 2003 and the trial has been concluded in the year 2006 and further the appellant has remained in custody from 07.02.2003 to 02.05.2006 i.e. more than 3 years. Minimum sentence prescribes for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Long pendency of the litigation has its own impact upon the appellant and considering this aspect, appellant''s sentence can be reduced to the period already under gone. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence. It has been argued that sufficient evidence is on record proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Since the matter relates to the Bank Dacoity and as such, the appellant cannot be treated leniently rather punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years is an appropriate punishment. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, from perusal of the testimony of all the witnesses it appears that the incident has been evidenced beyond all reasonable doubts. Sufficient evidence is available on record sustaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 9. In above view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is, hereby, sustained. Sufficient evidence is available on record sustaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 9. In above view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is, hereby, sustained. So far as sentencing is concerned as the incident is of the year 2003 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2019 and further the appellant has remained in custody for more than three years. 10. Considering the entire circumstances and material available on record, this Court considers that in the interest of justice, the sentence should be reduced to the minimum punishment i.e. 3 years. As the appellant has already remained in custody for more than three years, as such the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and he need not to serve the sentence any more. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003 is, hereby, modified to extent that the appellant is convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for three years (period already undergone). 12. XXX XXX XXX 13. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.